Well that's clear as mud.

I've complained, extensively, about this before but Anthropic really needs to make it clear what is and is not supported with or without a subscription. Until then, it's hard to know where you stand with using their products.

I say all of this as someone who doesn't use OpenClaw or any Claw-like product currently. I just want to know what I can and can't do and currently it's impossible to know.

Anthropic changing what you get for your subscription week to week is why I would never spend beyond a hobby-tier license. Great product. Probably. But maybe depending on what hours of the day you use it. If it suits them.

I can’t tell you how relieved I am that there are many capable open weight models in the wild to keep a ceiling on bad behavior.

The poor communication and flip-flopping are what concern me.

How can I buy into an ecosystem that might disallow one of my main workflows? I currently use several hook scripts to route specific work to different models. Will they disallow that at some point? We don't know because they can't get their story straight.

They really need to figure out the rules, look I'd love to use a custom harness with Claude Code that I can extend, or build my own (which I'm doing) and use it with my Claude Code license, I don't want to overspend on tokens if I can help it. They really need to set their bar for the next model releases to use less tokens, or to trim their own cost for how these models are run. I'd be okay with a slightly slower experience with Claude Code if it meant similar throughput, but less cost, especially if I can build my own harness for it.

I don’t get why people are so surprised. Didn’t they learn anything from Twitter APIs and the like. The APIs are open as long as they serve the short term problem then Anthropic builds the features people actually use (more or less) and ban the usage of APIs for competing clients

I think a good corollary idea to "vibe coding" is the "vibe product". There is so much stuff popping in and out of existence and my excitement has declined.

There's a technical reason the stance is so vague. Claude CLI works if you reuse its session token, works behind ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL, works wrapped in a shell script. Anthropic sees the same telemetry either way. To draw a firm line they'd have to cap what the CLI does, or ship a policy file the tooling can actually check, and both are a real investment. I read the current fog as them being honest about that rather than being evasive. It's still annoying.

I have no trouble believing that all labs are trying really hard to come up with an enticing bundle of something works for a wide variety of users, but it's hard to anticipate the popularity of something like OpenClaw, which completely blows through all previous usage patterns at population level.

It seems like a tall order to set lasting rules in this space at this point, where nobody really understands what is going to happen in a few weeks.

Same building on their API. You design around what you think is allowed, then a blog post shifts everything. A proper developer policy page would fix this.

> Until then, it's hard to know where you stand with using their products.

Working As Designed, clearly.

They probably decreased the cost and limited these external calls