News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Qwen3-Coder-Next by ericd on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @02:49PM (#46876275)
The anticompetitive part is setting a much lower price for typical usage of Claude Code vs. typical usage of another CLI dev tool.
Re:Qwen3-Coder-Next by gehsty on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @03:02PM (#46876449)
Anticompetitive with themselves? It’s not like Claude / Anthropic have any kind of monopoly, and services companies are allowed to charge different rates for different kind of access to said service?
Re:Qwen3-Coder-Next by tomjakubowski on Wednesday February 04, 2026 @08:14PM (#46894336)
[delayed]
Re:Qwen3-Coder-Next by rhgraysonii on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @03:04PM (#46876496)
The anticompetitive move would be not running their software if ‘which codex’ evaluated to showing a binary and then not allow you to use it due to its presence. Companies are allowed to set pricing and not let you borrow the jet to fly to a not approved destination. This distortion is just wrong as a premise. They are being competitive by making a superior tool and their business model is “no one else sells Claude” and they are pretty right to do this IMO.
Re:Qwen3-Coder-Next by ericd on Tuesday February 03, 2026 @03:13PM (#46876608)
Anticompetitive behavior has been normalized in our industry, doesn't make it not anticompetitive. It's a restriction that's meant to make it harder to compete with other parts of their offering. The non-anticompetitive approach would be to offer their subscription plans with a certain number of tokens every month, and then make Claude Code the most efficient with the tokens, to let it compete on its own merits.