Anthropic's trust problem is becoming a real business risk
Two separate threads are eating Anthropic alive today. The first is a discovery that Claude Code appears to be steganographically marking API requests, apparently to fingerprint resellers and catch model distillation. The HN discussion is harsh: one commenter notes the technique mostly punishes 'normal developers doing weird but legitimate things' rather than actual bad actors. Another says flatly, 'The more I learn about Anthropic the more they disgust me.'
The second thread is about Claude Fable 5 remaining unavailable for nearly a month, with Anthropic saying almost nothing about when it returns. Builders are frustrated because they made product decisions around Fable and now have no timeline, no clear explanation, and no recourse. Anthropic keeps launching new products (Claude Science, the export control lift on Fable 5 and Mythos 5) while leaving teams hanging on the original outage.
The pattern here: Anthropic is behaving like a company that prioritizes optics and control over the developer relationships that underpin its business. The steganography story, true or not, signals that Anthropic is treating API customers as potential adversaries rather than partners. That's a dangerous posture when your revenue depends on developers trusting you enough to build on your platform.
So what?
If you are building a product on Anthropic's API, today is a good day to audit your single-vendor exposure. The Fable outage shows that Anthropic can leave you stranded with no notice and no clear timeline. The watermarking story suggests they may be actively monitoring how you use their API in ways that aren't fully disclosed. Both of these are reasons to have a fallback model provider ready to swap in.
Read these
Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
Claude Sonnet 5
Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5
Claude Science