"Commoditizing your complement" is a convenient market phenomenon when it happens, but it's not a hard rule that everything that should be a commodity lands in the window of incentives that result in this strategy being the self-serving optimum for a company. Usage of "should" here can be interpreted as "would be most beneficial to the largest number of people in terms of cumulative productivity" or "not having this be commoditized leads to terrible incentives that harm a lot of people." There's no guarantee at all that it ends up being most profitable to individual market actors to attempt to commodify LLM compute, and in fact they seem more interested in securing legal moats and protected monopolies. You may think that reality will force this to fail via open source model releases from China or the like, but consider the world in which the US officially bans import and usage of all but specifically licensed and approved LLMs. The most powerful companies and people here seem broadly aligned on wanting that, so it's not implausible. Sure, you as an individual could illegally import and run an unsanctioned LLM yourself, but most people won't do that, and attempts to scale it would be beaten down with the force of law. The companies who strike deals will get 99+% of business and profit handsomely, no need to ever let their golden goose be commodified. It's a strictly better strategy if your government is dysfunctional enough to let it happen.

I don't really see how this applies to Anthropic. Claude Code _is_ their integral money maker. Their point above is a three-way neck-to-neck competition where they won't be able to become a near-monopoly any time soon.

Here's the Spolsky article, called "Strategy Letter V": https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

Here's links to the whole series up to VI: https://lettersremain.com/joel-spolsky-on-strategy/

> it can be more valuable to make it free if it increases profits elsewhere.

That's a big "if" for Claude Code, et al.