Is opencode that much better than Codex / Claude Code for cli tooling that people are prepared forsake[1] Sonnet 4.5/Opus 4.5 and switch to GPT 5.2-codex ?
The moat is Sonnet/Opus not Claude Code it can never be a client side app.
Cost arbitrage like this is short lived, until the org changes pricing.
For example Anthropic could release say an ultra plan at $500-$1000 with these restrictions removed/relaxed that reflects the true cost of the consumption, or get cost of inference down enough that even at $200 it is profitable for them and they will stop caring if higher bracket does not sell well, Then $200 is what market is ready to pay, there will be a % of users who will use it more than the rest as is the case in any software.
Either way the only money here i.e. the $200(or more) is only going to Anthropic.
[1] Perceived or real there is huge gulf in how Sonnet 4.5 is seen versus GPT 5.2-codex .
The combination of Claude Code and models could be a moat of its own; they are able to use RL to make their agent better - tool descriptions, reasoning patterns, etc.
Are they doing it? No idea, it sounds ridiculously expensive; but they did buy Bun, maybe to facilitate integrating around CC. Cowork, as an example, uses CC almost as an infrastructure layer, and the Claude Agent SDK is basically LiteLLM for your Max subscription - also built on/wrapping the CC app. So who knows, the juice may be worth the RL squeeze if CC is going to be foundational to some enterprise strategy.
Also IMO OpenCode is not better, just different. I’m getting great results with CC, but if I want to use other models like GLM/Qwen (or the new Nvidia stuff) it’s my tool of choice. I am really surprised to see people cancelling their Max subscriptions; it looks performative and I suspect many are not being honest.
Why would they not be use RL to learn if its OpenCode instead of Claude Code?
The tool calls,reasoning etc are still sent, tracked and used by Anthropic, the model cannot function well without that kind of detail.
OpenCode also get more data if they to train their own model with, however at this point only few companies can attempt to do foundational model training runs so I don't think the likes of Anthropic is worried about a small player also getting their user data.
---
> it looks performative and I suspect many are not being honest.
Quite possible if they were leveraging the cost arbitrage i.e. the fact at the actual per token cost was cheaper because of this loophole. Now their cost is higher, they perhaps don't need/want/value the quality for the price paid, so will go to Kimi K2/ Grok Code/ GLM Air for better pricing, basically if all you value is cost per token this change is reason enough to switch.
These are kind of users Anthropic perhaps doesn't want. Somewhat akin to Apple segmenting and not focusing on the budget market.
I’ve used both Claude and Codex extensively, and I already preferred Codex the model. I didn’t like the harness, but recently pi got good enough to be my daily driver, and I’ve since found that it’s much better than either CC or Codex CLI. It’s OSS, very simple and hackable, and the extension system is really nice. I wouldn’t want to go back to Claude Code even if I were convinced the model were much better - given that I already preferred the alternative it’s a no-brainer. OpenAI have officially allowed the use of pi with their sub, so at least in the short term the risk of a rug pull seems minimal.
It works, but there are fair amount of caveats, especially for someone working on things like Pytorch, the runtime is close but not the same, and its support of certain architectures etc can create annoying bugs.
Of all the companies to survive a crash in AI unscathed, I would bet on Apple the most.
They are only ones who do not have large debts off(or on) balance sheet or aggressive long term contracts with model providers and their product demand /cash flow is least dependent on the AI industry performance.
They will still be affected by general economic downturn but not be impacted as deeply as AI charged companies in big tech.
Eutelsat Oneweb is a subsidiary of Eutelsat group which after the bankruptcy, merger and capital raises currently composed of
- French state(29%),
- Bharti Airtel -Indian telecom group (17%),
- UK government (10%),
- SoftBank (10%) -Japanese bank
- CMA CGM(7.5%) french shipping company
- a consortium of French insurance companies with 5% .
Till recently a South Korean conglomerate Hanwha also had 5% stake .
there is a significant concentration of holding by national governments,
UK do have a golden share protecting their strategic needs , but their investment is now a small minority.
it is mostly French company today with diversified direct interests from 4-5 major countries.
Those are called emoticons, not emoji. "Emoji" came about specifically to distinguish the single-character ones (unicode or proprietary) from what we did before.
More people spent lot more time learning new tech skills (at every experience level).
The excess time available (less commute or career pause etc) and more interest (much more new opportunities) were probably leading reasons why they spent more time I would imagine.
The culture to use slack as documentation tooling can become quite annoying. People just @here/@channel without hesitation and producers just also don't do actual documentation. They only respond to slack queries, which works in the moment, but terrible for future team members to even know what questions to search/ask for.
Setting aside the performances of similar systems, the more fundamental question is why is this even important to Chinese carmakers?
1. They are shutout of the U.S. market with tariffs from both parties, that doesn't seem likely to change.
2. Self driving systems are far more difficult to work well on the roads of Europe, Asia or Africa. The kind of wide roads and planned development only exists in U.S, Canada or Australia. On top of it the issues with weather handling are still on-going problems.
3. Labor is not near as expensive as in the U.S. in the rest of the world (dollar is expensive) so automation ROI is not as attractive given the costs.
Tesla was a third of the new car market in Norway last year, but most people buy without the FSD. I don't know anyone that drives around using FSD as anything other than a gimmick or glorified lane assist.
Isn't that the model of every private equity? It was always hard to do well.
Although it doesn't seem that way, there are lot of companies that have become large recently, it is best time ever historically for companies to be able to grow large quickly much more so than 50 years ago in the early days of BH.
There are 1000+ unicorns today, about 50 of the fortune 500 are founded > 2000, a large number of companies that have chosen to remain private with revenues in excess of >$10B like Stripe or SpaceX etc
While it is true that lot of the action has been in sectors BH has never been comfortable holding large assets in such as SaaS, new fin-tech(i.e. crypto etc), or gig econ(Airbnb/Uber etc), social media(tiktok et al.) etc, that doesn't mean the principles are no longer needed or there aren't opportunities to take stake in these now mature companies and drive value.
Unlike other SaaS "acquisitions" of late, this will be not as straightforward closure of a subscription business.
The $1.5B contract with the Saudi Arabia is substantial and investors will want that monetized too, there are also existing DCs GroqCloud have in the ME region and also other spots around the world that are quite valuable for their hardware and power agreements etc.
Nvidia has CIFUS and other regulatory concerns and also don't want to compete against their customers be a neo cloud provider, the Saudis likely still want their DC build outs to proceed.
All this to say, the remaining parts while no longer as glamorous is still worth a lot and cannot be easily sold to big tech co. GroqCloud is more be like Nokia Technologies/ Networks rather be killed.
---
As a result, staff not part of the Nvidia deal likely have solid jobs and also now the opportunity to climb the ladder quickly now that a lot of leadership positions have opened up.
They are also going to have to be compensated higher in cash or poached by an upcoming chip startup as they are no longer tied to equity options vesting scheduled of a very valuable company (Pre deal Groq or now Nvidia).
In any scenario they will come out better of the deal, not as much they could have in a full acquisition yes, but certainly better than most engineers not working for a hyped AI startup nonetheless.
The moat is Sonnet/Opus not Claude Code it can never be a client side app.
Cost arbitrage like this is short lived, until the org changes pricing.
For example Anthropic could release say an ultra plan at $500-$1000 with these restrictions removed/relaxed that reflects the true cost of the consumption, or get cost of inference down enough that even at $200 it is profitable for them and they will stop caring if higher bracket does not sell well, Then $200 is what market is ready to pay, there will be a % of users who will use it more than the rest as is the case in any software.
Either way the only money here i.e. the $200(or more) is only going to Anthropic.
[1] Perceived or real there is huge gulf in how Sonnet 4.5 is seen versus GPT 5.2-codex .
reply