Comment by zb3
4 days ago
They're losing money on this $200 plan and they're essentially paying you to make you dependent on Claude Code so they can exploit this (somehow) in the future.
4 days ago
They're losing money on this $200 plan and they're essentially paying you to make you dependent on Claude Code so they can exploit this (somehow) in the future.
It's a bizarre plan because nobody is 'dependent' on Claude Code; we're begging to use alternatives. It's the model we want!
You’re not really paying for the model, you’re paying for the tool, the ecosystem, and the application layer around it.
Sonnet 4.6 in CC doesn’t behave the same way as Sonnet 4.6 in Antigravity.
Skills is a generic construct. System prompt is generic as well. Subagents, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md etc. these are generic, "please care for my instruction" kind of constructs without any real guarantee to close gaps.
Tool is generic (CC vs OpenCode) Ecosystem is already same everywhere.
I don't understand what's the point.
1 reply →
And it's their 'ecosystem' they want to sell you.
When using Claude Code, it's possible to opt out of having one's sessions be used for training. But is that opt out for everything? Or only message content, such that there could remain sufficient metadata to derive useful insight from?