Anthropic Removes Claude Code from Pro Plan, Developer Community Erupts, OpenAI Seizes the Opportunity to Strike

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-04-22Востаннє оновлено о 2026-04-22

Анотація

Anthropic has removed its coding agent, Claude Code, from the $20/month Pro plan, triggering strong backlash from the developer community. The change was reflected in updated pricing pages and documentation, which now state that Claude Code is only available to Max plan subscribers, starting at $100/month. Anthropic’s growth lead, Amol Avasare, described the move as a "small-scale test" affecting only 2% of new users, but the broad updates to public documentation contradicted this claim. He later acknowledged that rising computational costs due to increased usage made the previous pricing structure unsustainable. Developers expressed frustration on platforms like Hacker News, Reddit, and GitHub, with some calling it a reason to switch to local or open-source models like Llama or Mistral. In response, OpenAI quickly emphasized that its competing product, Codex, remains available in both free and $20/month Plus plans, and reaffirmed its commitment to transparent communication with users. Google’s Gemini CLI remains free, adding further competitive pressure. The incident highlights growing tension between AI service affordability and the high compute costs of advanced coding assistants.

Author: Claude, Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Guide: On April 21, Anthropic quietly removed its programming agent Claude Code from the $20/month Pro plan, with related pricing pages and help documents updated simultaneously. Although Growth Lead Amol Avasare claimed this was only a "small-scale test" targeting about 2% of new users, the site-wide documentation has been completely rewritten to state "Max plan only," sparking a massive backlash in the developer community. OpenAI promptly publicly stated that Codex will remain in the free and Plus plans, while the local model camp called this incident "the best time to switch to self-hosting."

Anthropic is testing developers' price tolerance limits, at the possible cost of user trust.

On April 21, some developers noticed significant changes on Anthropic's official pricing page: Claude Code was marked as unavailable (with an "X") in the feature comparison table for the Pro plan ($20/month), whereas the day before the page still stated that the Pro plan "includes Claude Code." Almost simultaneously, the wording in Anthropic's help documentation quietly changed from "Use Claude Code with your Pro or Max plan" to "Use Claude Code with your Max plan."

AI industry observer Ed Zitron first sounded the alarm on the Bluesky platform, and the news quickly sparked discussions on Hacker News, Reddit r/LocalLLaMA, and X platform.

Official Statement Calls it a "Small-Scale Test," but Documentation is Fully Rewritten

Facing the developer community's intense reaction, Anthropic Growth Lead Amol Avasare responded that day on the X platform, stating this was only a small-scale test targeting about 2% of newly registered users, and existing Pro and Max subscribers would not be affected.

However, multiple media outlets pointed out that Avasare's statement contradicted the actual situation: the feature comparison matrix on the pricing page had been updated site-wide, and the help documentation had also been modified simultaneously. These changes were visible to all visitors and did not resemble a灰度 test for 2% of users. According to The Register, as of publication time, an Anthropic spokesperson had not responded further to this contradiction.

In subsequent tweets, Avasare explained the logic behind the adjustment: when the Max plan was launched a year ago, Claude Code was not bundled with it, Cowork did not exist, and asynchronous agents running for hours were not yet the norm. Since then, Claude Code usage has surged significantly post-Opus 4, and user usage patterns have fundamentally changed. He admitted, "Usage per subscriber has increased substantially, and our current plan structure was not designed for this."

This statement actually revealed a key point: providing Claude Code access for a $20 monthly fee has become unsustainable in terms of computing costs. According to industry analysis, each Claude Code programming session consumes far more tokens than regular chat, and the computational cost of long programming sessions could be several times the subscription fee.

From $20 to $100, Developers Pushed to a Decision Point

If this change is ultimately implemented permanently, Pro users who wish to continue using Claude Code would need to upgrade to the Max 5x plan starting at $100/month, or the Max 20x plan at $200/month. The price has increased fivefold.

Developers reacted quickly and strongly. A GitHub issue titled "Breaking Change: Claude Code CLI Removed from Pro Plan Without Notice" appeared within hours.

A related post on Hacker News received over 100 upvotes and more than 40 comments in less than an hour. One user's experience was representative: he started with the $20 Pro plan in January, upgraded to $200 due to frequently hitting usage limits, downgraded to $100 due to quality drops in Claude Opus 4.6, and recently downgraded back to $20 because he was satisfied with OpenAI Codex's performance on GPT-5.4. "I went from the most enthusiastic recommender to my current state," he wrote.

The reaction on the Reddit r/LocalLLaMA community was more direct. A post titled "Anthropic removes Claude Code from Pro plan, users call it 'the best time to switch to local models'" received extensive discussion, focusing on the progress made by open-source models like Meta's Llama series, Mistral, and DeepSeek in programming capabilities over the past year, as well as the maturity of local deployment tools like Ollama and LM Studio.

OpenAI Quickly Strikes, Codex Remains in Free and Plus Plans

Competitors did not miss this window.

From OpenAI's side, an employee responsible for Codex-related work posted on the X platform: "I don't know what they're doing over there, but Codex will continue to be available in the free and Plus ($20) plans. We have the compute and efficient models to support it. For important changes, we communicate with the community in advance."

The timing and wording of this statement were highly targeted.

OpenAI's Codex, as the main competitor to Claude Code, is currently offered in the ChatGPT Plus ($20/month) plan with a usage limit of 30 to 150 messages every 5 hours, and also has basic access in the free plan. Additionally, weeks ago, OpenAI released a Codex plugin specifically designed for Claude Code users, allowing developers to directly call Codex for code review or task delegation within the Claude Code workflow.

Google is also active; Gemini CLI is currently completely free. According to The New Stack, Anthropic has recently been under pressure regarding computing supply. Not only did it remove Pro access to Claude Code, but it also previously cut off third-party client OpenClaw's access to Claude via subscription accounts. Platform stability issues and frequent outages have also provided opportunities for competitors.

Пов'язані питання

QWhat change did Anthropic make to its Pro plan regarding Claude Code, and when was it noticed?

AAnthropic removed Claude Code from its $20/month Pro plan on April 21, as noticed by developers who saw the pricing page updated to show Claude Code as unavailable for Pro users, whereas it was previously included.

QHow did Anthropic's growth head, Amol Avasare, explain the removal of Claude Code from the Pro plan?

AAmol Avasare claimed it was a 'small-scale test' affecting only about 2% of new sign-ups, stating that existing Pro and Max subscribers would not be impacted, and attributed the change to significantly increased usage and computational costs.

QWhat was the reaction from the developer community to Anthropic's change?

AThe developer community reacted strongly, with immediate backlash on platforms like Hacker News, Reddit, and X. Many expressed frustration, with some considering switching to local models or alternatives, and a GitHub issue was quickly created to highlight the abrupt change.

QHow did OpenAI respond to Anthropic's removal of Claude Code from the Pro plan?

AOpenAI swiftly responded by affirming that its Codex would remain available in both free and Plus ($20/month) plans, emphasizing their ability to support it with sufficient compute and efficient models, and criticizing Anthropic's lack of prior communication.

QWhat are the pricing implications for Pro users if they want to continue using Claude Code after this change?

AIf the change becomes permanent, Pro users would need to upgrade to the Max plan, which starts at $100/month for the 5x version or $200/month for the 20x version, effectively increasing the cost fivefold or more to access Claude Code.

Пов'язані матеріали

House Committee Unveils 7 Crypto Tax Drafts—A Major Overhaul Of How Digital Assets Are Taxed

The US House Ways and Means Committee has released seven crypto tax discussion drafts, marking a major legislative effort to clarify how digital assets are taxed. This initiative, backed by committee leadership, aims to establish clearer rules on the timing and treatment of taxes for activities like crypto mining, staking rewards, and stablecoin transactions, including potential capital gains exemptions. The package also seeks to extend wash sale restrictions to digital assets. Lawmakers are working with the Treasury, Commerce Department, and White House on the measures, while Senate tax writers are also developing their own legislation, signaling a move toward a more unified approach to crypto taxation.

bitcoinist47 хв тому

House Committee Unveils 7 Crypto Tax Drafts—A Major Overhaul Of How Digital Assets Are Taxed

bitcoinist47 хв тому

TechFlow Intelligence Bureau: Chip Stocks Lose Trillions in a Single Day, Bitcoin Falls Below $60,000, US-Iran Conflict Escalates

**Daily Tech & Markets Roundup: AI Advances, Market Turmoil, and Geopolitical Tensions** **AI / LLMs**: Anthropic's internal report on AI self-improvement sparked serious discussions about Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI). Meanwhile, debate continues on AI coding tools after Claude was accused of introducing bugs into the rsync codebase. In positive news, DeepSeek V4 Flash impressed in local deployment tests, and GitHub Copilot now supports custom endpoints for local models. A surprising research turn suggests removing chain-of-thought prompting can sometimes improve LLM performance. **Crypto / Web3**: Bitcoin plunged below $60,000, with its RSI hitting levels last seen during the COVID-19 crash, driven by strong U.S. jobs data reviving interest rate hike fears. Discussions highlight Ethereum DeFi's continued lack of a smooth consumer payment layer. **Chips / Hardware**: Chip stocks suffered a massive sell-off, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index posting its worst single-day drop in six years, erasing over a trillion dollars in value. Marvell, Micron, AMD, and Intel were among the biggest losers. **Tech Companies**: A leaked Microsoft document revealing goals to make Copilot "addictive" drew criticism. LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman left Microsoft's board to focus full-time on his AI agent startup, Manus. Google was revealed to be paying SpaceX $920 million monthly for AI training compute. **Markets & Macro**: A blowout U.S. jobs report (172k vs. 80k expected) crushed hopes for near-term rate cuts, sending Treasury yields soaring and triggering a broad market sell-off. CEOs from Kraft, McDonald's, and Whirlpool simultaneously warned U.S. consumers are exhausting their savings. **Geopolitics**: U.S.-Iran tensions escalated with missile/drone interceptions and U.S. strikes on Iranian radar sites, keeping the critical Strait of Hormuz largely closed since late February and posing ongoing oil supply risks. **The Bottom Line**: The strong jobs data acted as a single trigger for correlated sell-offs across equities, crypto, and chips. Underlying the volatility is a stark contradiction between robust employment data and warnings of consumer weakness, alongside geopolitical risks that could reignite inflation, leaving markets to price in a fraught macro outlook with no clear "soft landing" path.

marsbit2 год тому

TechFlow Intelligence Bureau: Chip Stocks Lose Trillions in a Single Day, Bitcoin Falls Below $60,000, US-Iran Conflict Escalates

marsbit2 год тому

Solana Treasury Giant Sends 455,784 SOL To Coinbase Prime: Selling Move?

Forward Industries, the largest corporate holder of Solana (SOL), has deposited 455,784 SOL (worth approximately $31.87 million) to Coinbase Prime. This move is seen as a potential sign the company may be preparing to sell, as its treasury strategy is currently at a significant loss. The firm accumulated 6.83 million SOL at an average price of $232.08 in 2025, but with SOL now trading around $65, its holdings are valued at just $452 million, representing a steep decline. This action follows similar pressures on other major crypto treasury firms, like Bitcoin holder Strategy, which are also deep in the red due to the broader market downturn. Solana's price has fallen over 19% in the past week.

bitcoinist2 год тому

Solana Treasury Giant Sends 455,784 SOL To Coinbase Prime: Selling Move?

bitcoinist2 год тому

It Took Me a Year to See the Bitter Truth About Agent Payments

After a year building infrastructure for the Agent economy, engaging with major players like Stripe, Visa, and Coinbase, the author shares a sobering analysis of the current state of Agent payments. The core finding is a stark lack of genuine, immediate demand across most envisioned use cases. The article breaks down four key market segments: 1. **Agent-to-Merchant (Consumer Shopping):** For most product categories (e.g., clothing, electronics), conversational AI shopping is a step backwards from visual e-commerce interfaces. While agents excel at understanding needs, they can't replace side-by-side product comparison. Real merchant interest is defensive "Agent Engine Optimization," not driven by current customer demand. Potential exists for high-frequency, low-decision purchases (like food delivery) or navigating complex store UIs, but these require massive B2C distribution channels dominated by giants like Amazon. 2. **Agent-to-API (Developer Services):** Developers already have subscriptions and billing relationships for APIs (compute, data). Prepaid balances solve micro-payment issues for low transaction volumes. A deeper structural problem is that major SaaS vendors' business models rely on enterprise contracts, resisting granular pay-per-call pricing. While protocols like MPP and x402 serve the long tail of niche services, this market is small and developers are historically low-willingness-to-pay. 3. **Agent-to-Agent:** This remains largely theoretical with minimal transaction volume. While it represents a long-term bet on a fundamentally new transaction infrastructure (sub-second, micro-penny to million-dollar, multi-party settlements), it does not constitute a present market. 4. **Agent-to-Finance:** This is the only category with existing, paying demand. Integrating AI into financial workflows (trading, portfolio management) is a natural evolution and enables new capabilities like autonomous rebalancing. However, competition favors established, regulated institutions. The "real problem" is not moving money between agents, but the broader challenge of **coordination**—orchestrating work between agents and humans, verifying outcomes, and settling results. Payment is just one component of settlement, which is itself part of coordination. Companies that solve the coordination layer will subsume payment, not the other way around. While well-funded incumbents build defensively for a long-term future, startups must find where the market is today—which, for the author's team, lies outside these four categories in an area of real, growing, and underserved activity.

marsbit3 год тому

It Took Me a Year to See the Bitter Truth About Agent Payments

marsbit3 год тому

It Took Me a Year to See the Hard Truth About Agent Payments

**Title: It Took Me a Year to See the Hard Truth About Agent Payments** Over the past year, I've worked on infrastructure for the Agent economy, engaging with major players like Stripe, Visa, Coinbase, and numerous startups. The findings reveal a stark reality: genuine, widespread demand for Agent-based payments does not yet exist. **Key Observations:** * **Agent-to-Merchant (Shopping):** The user experience for AI shopping often falls short, especially for visual product discovery. While AI excels at understanding needs, conversational interfaces can't yet replace browsing and comparing multiple products visually. Current merchant interest is largely defensive ("Agent Engine Optimization") for a future that hasn't arrived. High-frequency, low-friction purchases (like food delivery) are potential fits, but lack open APIs and face high AI inference costs. Simpler, more affordable, or cross-language interactions for complex UIs are a niche opportunity but require massive consumer distribution to scale. * **Agent-to-API (Developer Tools):** Developer payment needs for APIs (computing, data, models) are already met through subscriptions and prepaid credits. The core challenge is not payment friction but supplier economics: most large SaaS providers prefer enterprise contracts over micropayments for API calls. Protocols like MPP and x402 suit the long-tail of smaller services but cater to a developer market historically reluctant to pay for these tools. Major infrastructure needs at the top of the stack are already being addressed. * **Agent-to-Agent (Machine Commerce):** This is a long-term vision with almost no current transaction volume. While a future with high-speed, high-frequency, multi-party machine-to-machine transactions would require novel infrastructure, it remains theoretical. The market is not here yet. * **Agent-to-Finance:** This is the only category with clear, present demand. Financial professionals and DeFi users already pay for tools, and AI augmentation is a natural evolution. Autonomous AI agents can enable entirely new financial strategies. However, competition is fierce from established, regulated incumbents who can more easily layer AI onto their existing products. **The Core Insight:** Companies, especially giants with long time horizons, are building defensively for a potential future of mass machine commerce. For them, early investment is a low-cost hedge. For startups, the current market reality is different. The primary challenge isn't just moving money between agents (payments). The larger, unsolved problem is **orchestration** – coordinating work between agents and humans, verifying outcomes, and then settling. Payment is just a part of settlement, which is just a part of orchestration. Companies that solve the orchestration problem will subsume payments, not the other way around. After a year of building, we see the real, growing, and underserved market opportunity lies in this broader domain of orchestration.

链捕手3 год тому

Торгівля

Спот

Ф'ючерси