I don't see how they can get more clear about this, considering they have repeatedly answered it the exact same way.

Subscriptions are for first-party products (claude.com, mobile and desktop apps, Claude Code, editor extensions, Cowork).

Everything else must use API billing.

▲

firloop 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The biggest reason why this is confusing is the Claude Agent SDK[0] will use subscription/oauth credentials if present. The terms update implies that there's some use cases where that's ok and other use cases (commercial?) where using their SDK on a user's device violates terms.

[0] https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/overview

	▲	theturtletalks 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Had the same question, comment below quotes their docs saying Agent SDK using oAuth token is also not allowed.
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	BoorishBears 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The SDK is Claude Code in a harnesss, so it works with your credentials the same way CC does. But they're stating you can only use your subscription for your personal usage, not someone else's for their usage in your product. I honestly think they're being short sighted not just giving a "3rd party quota" since they already show users like 4 quotas. If the fear is 3rd party agents screwing up the math, just make it low enough for entry level usage. I suspect 3rd party token usage is bi-modal where some users just need enough to kick tires, but others are min-maxing for how mamy tokens they can burn as if that's its own reward

▲

dakolli 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And at that point, you might as well use OpenRouter's PKCE and give users the option to use other models..

These kinds of business decisions show how these $200.00 subscriptions for their slot/infinite jest machines basically light that $200.00 on fire, and in general how unsustainable these business models are.

Can't wait for it all to fail, they'll eventually try to get as many people to pay per token as possible, while somehow getting people to use their verbose antigentic tools that are able to inflate revenue through inefficient context/ouput shenanigans.

▲

hombre_fatal 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the subscription pricing exists because it’s a far more palatable way to bill people for day to day personal use.

I used Claude back when API per token pricing was the only option and it was bad for all the usual reasons pay-per-use sucks compared to flat billing: you’re constantly thinking about cost. Like trying to watch a Netflix video with a ticker in the corner counting up the cents you owe them.

I don’t understand your claim that they want people paying per token - the subscription is the opposite of that, and it also has upsides for them as a business since most people don’t saturate the usage limits, and the business gets to stuff a bunch of value-adds on a bundle offering which is generally a more lucrative and enticing consumer pricing model.

▲

gbear605 an hour ago | parent [-]

The bundle only works if it’s +EV for them. A lot of analyses (though not all - it’s complicated) say that the $200/mo bundle (and certainly the $20/mo bundle) costs more than that for most users, and the bundle is currently a loss leader. If so, then eventually prices will need to go up, and API per usage pricing will seem much more attractive.

	▲	dakolli 8 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm not going to say what platform but it's an agentic coding tool, I know for a fact the platform loses in the mid $200.00s on a $20.00 plan. 10:1 loss leader for customer acquisition is crazy, and they'll have to make that up in the future somehow, they're all fumbling on how to vendor lock their customers, and its not necessarily clear they're going to be able to. I expect some big falls from 10 figure businesses in the next year or two as they realize this is impossible. They've built an industry on the backs of gambling addicts and dopamine feins (I'm generalizing but this is a thing with LLM users (just read vibe coders posts on twitter, they're slot machine users). Ask sports betting operators from back in 2019-2022 how it worked out for them when they tried to give out 1-2k a year to attract new customers, and then realized their customers will switch platforms in an instant they see a new shiny offer. Look up the Fanduel Founders "exit" for an insight into this. They have to eventually stop catering to the slot machine users, which are generally paying for these hugely lossy flat rate subscriptions, and somehow get them used to a different type of payment model, or cater strictly to enterprise... Which also aren't going to tolerate paying 20k a month in tokens per developer, is my guess.... Lots of delicate pricing problems to figure out for all these companies.
	▲	zdragnar an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Even if it more expensive, people will prefer subscription pricing over pay per use. When you ask it to do something and it goes off the rails, the payment plans have wildly different effects: Subscription- oh well, let's try again with a different prompt Pay per use- I just wasted money, this product sucks Even if it is less common than not, it has an outsized impact on how people feel using it.

▲

baq an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s been obvious from the start that the $200 point is the free tier

▲

MillionOClock 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You are talking about Anthropic and indeed compared to OpenAI or GitHub Copilot they have seemed to be the ones with what I would personally describe as a more restrictive approach.

On the other hand OpenAI and GitHub Copilot have, as far as I know, explicitly allowed their users to connect to at least some third party tools and use their quotas from there, notably to OpenCode.

What is unclear to me is whether they are considering also allowing commercial apps to do that. For instance if I publish a subscription based app and my users pay for the app itself rather than for LLM inference, would that be allowed?

▲

theturtletalks 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What if you wrap the service using their Agent SDK?

	▲	gexla an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That should be fine, because it's still using their tooling. And this seems like the better way to go. I have a couple of tools that work like this. I think the issue is mostly 3rd party harnesses that seek to do the same as Claude Code. And it seems reasonable that Anthropic decides how you can use the subscription, because it's heavily subsidized. Get a Claude $200 sub and max out the usage limits, then compare that usage to the cost of using their API. The difference is significant, which is why people are getting multiple $200 subs rather than paying for API usage (and I have seen reports where they are cracking down on this as well.)
	▲	4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

Imustaskforhelp 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Quick question but what if I use claude code itself for the purpose?

https://github.com/rivet-dev/sandbox-agent/tree/main/gigacod... [I saw this inShow HN: Gigacode – Use OpenCode's UI with Claude Code/Codex/Amp] (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46912682)

This can make Opencode work with Claude code and the added benefit of this is that Opencode has a Typescript SDK to automate and the back of this is still running claude code so technically should work even with the new TOS?

So in the case of the OP. Maybe Opencode TS SDK <-> claude code (using this tool or any other like this) <-> It uses the oauth sign in option of Claude code users?

Also, zed can use the ACP protocol itself as well to make claude code work iirc. So is using zed with CC still allowed?

> I don't see how they can get more clear about this, considering they have repeatedly answered it the exact same way.

This is confusing quite frankly, there's also the claude agent sdk thing which firloop and others talked about too. Some say its allowed or not. Its all confusing quite frankly.