| ▲ | ramoz 4 days ago |
| And then the providers ship a landmark feature or overhaul themselves. Especially as their models advance. Wrappers constantly live in the support and feature parity of today. Anthropic’s Claude Code will look a hell of a lot different a year from now, probably more like an OS for developers and Claude Agent non-tech. Regardless they are eating the stack. Pricing/usage will be very simple - a fixed subscription and we will no longer know the tokenomics because the provider will have greatly abstracted and optimized the cost per token, favoring a model that they can optimize margin against a fixed revenue floor. |
|
| ▲ | commandar 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| >Pricing/usage will be very simple - a fixed subscription and we will no longer know the tokenomics because the provider will have greatly abstracted and optimized the cost per token, favoring a model that they can optimize margin against a fixed revenue floor. Personally, I think it's far more likely that a year from now either SotA models will have shifted elsewhere or Anthropic will have changed their pricing model to something less favorable than the current MAX plans. Either of those scenarios could suddenly result in the current Claude subscription models either not existing or no longer being the screaming deal they are now. I think it's exceedingly unlikely we see any major provider go to an unmetered business model any time soon. And if you've built your entire workflow around tooling specific to Anthropic's services, suddenly you have an even bigger problem than just switching to a more cost effective provider. That's one of the bigger reasons I'm very skeptical of these wrappers around CC generally. Even Claude Code itself isn't doing anything that couldn't and hasn't been done by other tools other than being tied to a really cheap way to use Claude. |
| |
| ▲ | petesergeant 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Claude’s wide adoption makes it more likely Anthropic will stay SotA, as do the max plans. This is the training data they crave to be able to improve, and it’s costing them peanuts while identifying customers who’ll pay and building loyalty. The data flywheel enabled by Claude is the closest thing to a vault any of the models have right now. | | |
| ▲ | commandar 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Anthropic's models are fantastic, but they are -- by far -- one of the most expensive providers on an API basis. That's a large part of what makes the Max plans a great deal, right now. Even on a Max plan, it's not hard to completely blow through your usage limits if you try to use Opus heavily. All it takes is another provider to land a combination of model and cost that makes Code less of a deal for vendor lock-in to become a problem. | |
| ▲ | qcnguy 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do they have such a flywheel? I remember I had to specifically opt-in to sharing my Claude Code sessions with them. I think by default they aren't training on people's sessions. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | zarzavat 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm more optimistic. Open source and open weights will eat this whole space. Training is capital-intensive, yes, but so far it appears that there will always be some entities willing to train models and release them for free. All it takes is a slowdown at the frontier for the open models to catch up. The money is in the hardware, not the software. |
| |
| ▲ | unethical_ban 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I still can't figure out how to set up a completely free, completely private/no-accounts method of connecting an IDE to LM Studio. I thought it would be "Continue" extension for VS Code, but even for local LM integration it insists I sign-in to their service before continuing. | | |
| ▲ | mikestaas 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Roo code in vs code, and qwen coder in lm studio is a decent local only combo. | | |
| ▲ | omneity 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Strongly seconding Roo Code. I am using it in VSCodium and it's the perfect partner for a fully local coding workflow (nearly 100% open-source too so no vendor is going to pry it from my hand, "ever"). Qwen Coder 30B is my main driver in this configuration and in my experience is quite capable. It runs at 80 tok/s on my M3 Max and I'm able to use it for about 30-50% of my coding tasks, the most menial ones. I am exploring ways to RL its approach to coding so it fits my style a bit more and it's a very exciting prospect whenever I manage to figure it out. The missing link is autocomplete since Roo only solves the agent part. Continue.dev does a decent job at that but you really want to pair it with a high performance, large context model (so it fits multiple code sections + your recent changes + context about the repo and gives fast suggestions) and that doesn't seem feasible or enjoyable yet in a fully local setup. | | |
| ▲ | unethical_ban 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Thanks to both for recommending roo, it is the closest I've gotten. I still can't get it to work the way I expect. When I use qwen coder 30B directly to create a small demo web page, it gives me apl the files and filenames. When I do the same thing in roo chat (set to coder) and it runs around in circles, doesn't build multiple files and eventually crashes out. |
|
| |
| ▲ | maxsilver 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Both Roo and Continue support local modals (via LM Studio). For Continue, you add a fake account (type in literally anything) and then click 'edit' -- it will take you to the settings JSON, and you can type in LM Studio as your source. The main problem I'm seeing, is that a lot of the tooling doesn't work as well "agentically" with the models. (Most of these tools say something like 'works best with Claude, tested with Claude, good luck with any local models'). The local models via LM Studio already works really well for pure chat, but occasionally trip up semi-regularly on basic things, like writing files or running commands -- stuff that say, GitHub Copilot has mostly already polished. But those are basically just bugs in tooling that will likely get fixed. The local-only setup is behind the current commercial market -- but not much behind. I strongly agree with the commenter above, if the commercial models and tooling slow down at any point, the free/open models and tooling will absolutely catch up -- I'd guess within 9 months or so. | |
| ▲ | taneq 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Huh? I have Continue on Codium talking to ollama, all local, and I never signed up to nuffin’ |
|
|
|
| ▲ | calvinmorrison 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So I work at a company that sells a product that is part of a larger ecosystem. the parent company has spent 35 years NOT having a solution to our niche. There are others like us too in the space. Some do WMS, some do EDI, etc. So depending on the parent company, they may prefer to have a - to be a little enterprisey - set of ISVs that are better in specifc domains. |
|
| ▲ | bigyabai 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > a fixed subscription and we will no longer know the tokenomics because the provider will have greatly abstracted This is definitely not how most compute-constrained cloud services end up looking. Your cloud storage provider doesn't charge you a flat rate for 5tb/month of storage, and no amount of financier economics can get Claude there either. |
| |
