A flat pricing subscription for Claude Code

The problem is that this is $100&#x2F;mo with limits. At work I use Cursor, which is pretty good (especially tab completion), and at home I use Copilot in vscode insiders build, which is catching up to Cursor IMO.<p>However, as long as Microsoft is offering copilot at (presumably subsidized) $10&#x2F;mo, I&#x27;m not interested in paying 10x as much and still having limits. It would have to be 10x as useful, and I doubt that.

I&#x27;m curious whether anyone&#x27;s actually using Claude code successfully. I tried it on release and found it negative value for tasks other than spinning up generic web projects. For existing codebases of even a moderate size, it burns through cash to write code that is always slightly wrong and requires more tuning than writing it myself.

Yes, let’s all agree not to compete with something that competes with us. Galaxy brain

Claude&#x27;s limits are so vague - its not clear if buying Claude Max is cheaper than just using the API. Has anyone benchmarked this?

It would really be helpful if Anthropic let user know the useage limits and what has been used and what is left instead of these vague X5 X20 vs Pro.

$200&#x2F;month?<p>Do people really get that much value from these tools?<p>I use Github&#x27;s Copilot for $10 and I&#x27;m somewhat happy for what I get... but paying 10x or 20x that just seems insane.

I wonder how successful this pricing model ($100-$200 a month with limits) is going to be. It is very hard to justify, when other tooling in the ~$20&#x2F;month range offers unlimited usage, and comparable quality.

Agent mode without rails is like a boat without a rudder.<p>What worked for me was coming up with an extremely opinionated way to develop an application and then generating instructions (mini milestones) by combining it with the requirements.<p>These instructions end up being very explicit in the sequence of things it should do (write the tests first), how the code should be written and where to place it etc. So the output ended up being very similar regardless of the coding agent being used.

the new Claude code “max plan” would last me all of [1] 5mins… I don’t get why people are excited about this. High powered tools aren’t cheap and aren’t for the consumer…<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;live&#x2F;khr-cIc7zjc?si=oI9Fj33JBeDlQEYG" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;live&#x2F;khr-cIc7zjc?si=oI9Fj33JBeDlQEYG</a>

Worth it, but I’m chilling until the next major model release.<p>It still double downs on non working solutions

This isn&#x27;t flat pricing. It&#x27;s exactly the same API credits but you prepay for the month and lose anything you don&#x27;t use.<p>Whether it turns out to be cheaper depends on your usage.<p>I thought Claude Code was absurdly expensive and not at all more capable than something like chatgpt combined with copilot.

Both Anthropic and OpenAI don&#x27;t have Linux desktop clients (to use MCP), so yea I&#x27;ll skip.

I am sure this is worth every dime, but my workflow is so used to Cursor now (cursor rules, model choice, tab complete, to be specific), that I can&#x27;t be bothered to try this out.

One of my problems developing Brokk (AI coding for large codebases, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brokk.ai" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;brokk.ai</a>) is that everyone is used to Cursor-style pricing of $20ish a month, but Brokk is designed around long-form prompts, it&#x27;s a lot closer to a leash for Claude Code than it is to a Cursor or a Copilot, and the bill is a lot closer to CC too. (But of course Brokk is vendor neutral; you can absolutely mix o3 with GP2.5 with S3.7.)<p>So maybe Anthropic setting this precedent will solve my problem!

Do you still need a phone number to register with claude?