←back to thread

Google is winning on every AI front

(www.thealgorithmicbridge.com)
993 points vinhnx | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
codelord ◴[] 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 #
falcor84 ◴[] 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 #
ff4 ◴[] 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 #
ghurtado ◴[] 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 #
ploxiln ◴[] No.43662945[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 #
1. asadotzler ◴[] No.43663970[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.