"these tools put an outsized strain on our systems"

AKA when you fully use the capacity you paid for, that's too much!

danpalmer 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You don't pay for capacity, you pay for an interface. Paying for capacity is what API keys are for.

Similarly, on a home internet connection you might pay for a given size of pipe, but most residential ISPs don't allow running publicly accessible servers on your connection because you'll typically use way more of the bandwidth.

	▲	GandalfHN 23 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That analogy fails. Anthropic sold a Claude Code subscription, then blocked OpenClaw and narrowed the practical use case after the sale, which reads more like an airline overbooking and then claiming you bought a seat, not a flight. API and subscription are different products, sure. The vendor still sets the line between flat-rate access and rate limits, and that line looks slippery once your usage leaves the preferred path.
	▲	alasano 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		If that same internet provider has caps on how much bandwidth I can use every 5 hours and total on a weekly basis, then yes, I pay for capacity. That argument would have been valid when the 5 hours blocks were unlimited in the beginning.

▲

Jimmc414 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m not sure why people expect Anthropic to subsidize tokens through Open Claw when it’s specifically forbidden in the ToS.

▲

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

Except no, you aren't paying the full capacity of using all of your limits every time. The subscription cost is less than it would take to actually pay for the capacity of the limits. That is how these sorts of subscriptions work.

You can pay for the capacity, using the per token price.

▲

infecto 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Meh this argument does not hold up. If you don’t like it pay for the API. We all know these services are priced for human use, as in your not using it 24/7.