zlacker

When you state it like that, I now totally understand why Anthropic have a strong incentive to kick out OpenCode.

OpenCode is incentivized to make a good product that uses your token budget efficiently since it allows you to seamlessly switch between different models.

Anthropic as a model provider on the other hand, is incentivized to exhaust your token budget to keep you hooked. You'll be forced to wait when your usage limits are reached, or pay up for a higher plan if you can't wait to get your fix.

CC, specifically Opus 4.5, is an incredible tool, but Anthropic is handling its distribution the way a drug dealer would.

>>ayewo+(OP)
OpenCode also would be incentivized to do things like having you configure multiple providers and route requests to cheaper providers where possible.

Controlling the coding tool absolutely is a major asset, and will be an even greater asset as the improvements in each model iteration makes it matter less which specific model you're using.

>>ayewo+(OP)
You think after 27 billions invested they're gonna be ethical or want to get their money back as fast as possible?

>>ayewo+(OP)
It's like the very first days of computers at all. IBM supplied both the hardware and the software, and the software did not make the most efficient use of the hardware.

Which was nothing new itself of course. Conflicts of interest didn't begin with computers, or probably even writing.