The the article was talking about how Anthropic costs too much and how there are cheaper options available then yes I would agree with you. But this article has a conspiratorial and moral crusade tone which is what I'm responding to. The article says "In my opinion (which may be in the minority), it’s unethical to:
lock in your customers to a closed system for maximum market gain
put down the competition when they pose a risk to your product
make hypocritical claims on how your product increases quality when your own software sucks
artificially restrict one’s own product as a fear-mongering marketing stunt
test dynamic pricing on your users to see how much more they’ll pay for less
change the terms of your product after the sale without notifying your user base"
anthropic is not just a business operating in a market, they are "unethical" and "fear-mongering" and "hypocritical".
lock in your customers to a closed system for maximum market gain put down the competition when they pose a risk to your product make hypocritical claims on how your product increases quality when your own software sucks artificially restrict one’s own product as a fear-mongering marketing stunt test dynamic pricing on your users to see how much more they’ll pay for less change the terms of your product after the sale without notifying your user base"
anthropic is not just a business operating in a market, they are "unethical" and "fear-mongering" and "hypocritical".