Most active commenters
  • falcor84(3)

←back to thread

Google is winning on every AI front

(www.thealgorithmicbridge.com)
993 points vinhnx | 26 comments | 12 Apr 25 03:58 UTC | HN request time: 1.148s | source | bottom
Show context
codelord ◴[12 Apr 25 06:51 UTC] No.43661966[source]▶
As an Ex-OpenAI employee I agree with this. Most of the top ML talent at OpenAI already have left to either do their own thing or join other startups. A few are still there but I doubt if they'll be around in a year. The main successful product from OpenAI is the ChatGPT app, but there's a limit on how much you can charge people for subscription fees. I think soon people expect this service to be provided for free and ads would become the main option to make money out of chatbots. The whole time that I was at OpenAI until now GOOG has been the only individual stock that I've been holding. Despite the threat to their search business I think they'll bounce back because they have a lot of cards to play. OpenAI is an annoyance for Google, because they are willing to burn money to get users. Google can't as easily burn money, since they already have billions of users, but also they are a public company and have to answer to investors. But I doubt if OpenAI investors would sign up to give more money to be burned in a year. Google just needs to ease off on the red tape and make their innovations available to users as fast as they can. (And don't let me get started with Sam Altman.)
replies(23): >>43661983 #>>43662449 #>>43662490 #>>43662564 #>>43662766 #>>43662930 #>>43662996 #>>43663473 #>>43663586 #>>43663639 #>>43663820 #>>43663824 #>>43664107 #>>43664364 #>>43664519 #>>43664803 #>>43665217 #>>43665577 #>>43667759 #>>43667990 #>>43668759 #>>43669034 #>>43670290 #
1. falcor84 ◴[12 Apr 25 08:18 UTC] No.43662449[source]▶
> Google can't as easily burn money

I was actually surprised at Google's willingness to offer Gemini 2.5 Pro via AI Studio for free; having this was a significant contributor to my decision to cancel my OpenAI subscription.

replies(4): >>43662609 #>>43662747 #>>43663201 #>>43663325 #
2. relistan ◴[12 Apr 25 08:48 UTC] No.43662609[source]▶
This is 100% why they did it.
3. ff4 ◴[12 Apr 25 09:13 UTC] No.43662747[source]▶
Google offering Gemini 2.5 Pro for free, enough to ditch OpenAI, reminds me of an old tactic.

Microsoft gained control in the '90s by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows for free, undercutting Netscape’s browser. This leveraged Windows’ dominance to make Explorer the default choice, sidelining competitors and capturing the browser market. By 1998, Netscape’s share plummeted, and Microsoft controlled access to the web.

Free isn’t generous—it’s strategic. Google’s hooking you into their ecosystem, betting you’ll build on their tools and stay. It feels like a deal, but it’s a moat. They’re not selling the model; they’re buying your loyalty.

replies(2): >>43662892 #>>43663010 #
4. ghurtado ◴[12 Apr 25 09:41 UTC] No.43662892[source]▶
> undercutting Netscape’s browser

It almost sounds like you're saying that Netscape wasn't free, and I'm pretty sure it was always free, before and after Microsoft Explorer

replies(2): >>43662945 #>>43684426 #
5. ploxiln ◴[12 Apr 25 09:49 UTC] No.43662945{3}[source]▶
> Netscape, in contrast, sells the consumer version of Navigator for a suggested price of $49. Users can download a free evaluation copy from the Internet, but it expires in 90 days and does not include technical support.

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/19/business/netscape-moves-t...

replies(2): >>43663273 #>>43663970 #
6. falcor84 ◴[12 Apr 25 10:03 UTC] No.43663010[source]▶
The joke's on them, because I don't have any loyalty to an LLM provider.

There's very close to zero switching costs, both on the consumer front and the API front; no real distinguishing features and no network effects; just whoever has the best model at this point in time.

replies(6): >>43663079 #>>43663121 #>>43663127 #>>43663469 #>>43663557 #>>43663929 #
7. cousin_it ◴[12 Apr 25 10:19 UTC] No.43663079{3}[source]▶
There is a network effect: more user interaction = more training data. I don't know how important it is, though.
replies(1): >>43667241 #
8. m11a ◴[12 Apr 25 10:25 UTC] No.43663121{3}[source]▶
I feel like they’re trying to increase switching costs. eg was huge reluctance to adopt MCP and each had their own tool framework, until it seemed too big to ignore and everyone was just building MCP tools not OpenAI SDK tools.
9. InsideOutSanta ◴[12 Apr 25 10:26 UTC] No.43663127{3}[source]▶
I'm assuming Google's play here is to bleed its competitors of money and raise prices when they're gone. Building top-tier models is extremely expensive and will probably remain so.

Even companies that do it "on the cheap," like DeepSeek, pay tens of millions to train a single model, and total expenditures for infrastructure and salaries are estimated to surpass $1 billion. This market has an extremely high cost of entry.

So, I guess Google is applying the usual strategy here: undercut competition until it implodes and buy up any promising competitors that arise in the future. Given the current lack of market regulation in the US, this might work.

replies(2): >>43663535 #>>43664493 #
10. cheema33 ◴[12 Apr 25 10:39 UTC] No.43663201[source]▶
I pay for ChatGPT, Anthropic and Copilot. After using Gemini 2.5 Pro via AI Studio, I plan on canceling all other paid AI services. There is no point in keeping them.
11. franze ◴[12 Apr 25 10:50 UTC] No.43663273{4}[source]▶
yeah, it was free as the evaluation copy did not really expire. just some features that nobody cared about
12. mikehotel ◴[12 Apr 25 11:01 UTC] No.43663325[source]▶
From the terms of use:

To help with quality and improve our products, human reviewers may read, annotate, and process your API input and output. Google takes steps to protect your privacy as part of this process. This includes disconnecting this data from your Google Account, API key, and Cloud project before reviewers see or annotate it. Do not submit sensitive, confidential, or personal information to the Unpaid Services.

https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/terms#data-use-unpaid

13. thijson ◴[12 Apr 25 11:26 UTC] No.43663469{3}[source]▶
The strategy worked, Netscape is no more. Eventually Google did the same to Microsoft though. I wonder if any lessons can be taken from the browser wars to how things will play out with AI models.
replies(1): >>43663935 #
14. Nuzzerino ◴[12 Apr 25 11:40 UTC] No.43663535{4}[source]▶
They’ll also need a fleet of humanoid robots eventually to compete with Elon’s physical world data collection plans.
replies(1): >>43663862 #
15. coliveira ◴[12 Apr 25 11:43 UTC] No.43663557{3}[source]▶
You don't have loyalty, but one day there will be no one else to switch to. So, if you're a loyal user or not is a moot point.
replies(1): >>43664404 #
16. codethief ◴[12 Apr 25 12:39 UTC] No.43663862{5}[source]▶
Too bad they sold Boston Dynamics :)
17. asadotzler ◴[12 Apr 25 12:51 UTC] No.43663929{3}[source]▶
The same was true for Web browsers in 2002, yet MS controlled 95% of the access to the web thanks to that bundling and no other "good enough" competitors until Firefox came along a few years later and took 30% from them giving Google an in to take the whole game with Chrome a few years later.
18. at0mic22 ◴[12 Apr 25 12:52 UTC] No.43663935{4}[source]▶
Remember Google tried to play this trick with ChromeOS?
19. asadotzler ◴[12 Apr 25 12:56 UTC] No.43663970{4}[source]▶
90% of Netscape users were free users and by late 1997, less than two years after the IPO and massive user growth, it was free to all because of MS's bundling threat. That didn't help. By 2002, MS owned 95% of access to the web. No one has ever reached even close to first mover Netscape or cheater bundled IE since, with the far superior non-profit Firefox managing almost 30% and Chrome from the biggest web player in history sitting "only" at about 65%.

Bundling a "good enough" products can do a lot, including take you from near zero to overwhelmingly dominant in 5 years, as MS did.

20. falcor84 ◴[12 Apr 25 13:56 UTC] No.43664404{4}[source]▶
History shows it's a self-defeating victory. If one provider were to "win" and stop innovating, they'll become ripe for disruption by the likes of Deepseek, and the second someone like that has a better model, I'll switch.
replies(3): >>43665091 #>>43667228 #>>43668796 #
21. datavirtue ◴[12 Apr 25 14:05 UTC] No.43664493{4}[source]▶
Yeah, they just have to make it through the hype and innovation cycle.
22. coliveira ◴[12 Apr 25 15:14 UTC] No.43665091{5}[source]▶
Nothing lasts forever, not even empires. This doesn't mean that tech monopoly is any better than any other monopoly. They're all detrimental to society.
23. pixl97 ◴[12 Apr 25 19:24 UTC] No.43667228{5}[source]▶
Eh, and if you're in the US the 'big guys' will have their favorite paid off politician put in a law that use of Chinese models is illegal or whatever.

Rent seeking behavior is always the end game.

24. pixl97 ◴[12 Apr 25 19:25 UTC] No.43667241{4}[source]▶
Yep, this is why android phones are now pointing out their gemini features every moment they can. They want to turn their spying device into an AI spying device.
25. sumedh ◴[12 Apr 25 23:36 UTC] No.43668796{5}[source]▶
> If one provider were to "win" and stop innovating, they'll become ripe for disruption by the likes of Deepseek

Yes but that can take decades, till that time Google can keep making money with sub standard products and stop innovating.

26. dep_b ◴[14 Apr 25 18:15 UTC] No.43684426{3}[source]▶
It was US$50,- until 1995