←back to thread

Gemini CLI

(blog.google)
1342 points sync | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
iandanforth ◴[] No.44377207[source]
I love how fragmented Google's Gemini offerings are. I'm a Pro subscriber, but I now learn I should be a "Gemini Code Assist Standard or Enterprise" user to get additional usage. I didn't even know that existed! As a run of the mill Google user I get a generous usage tier but paying them specifically for "Gemini" doesn't get me anything when it comes to "Gemini CLI". Delightful!
replies(21): >>44377223 #>>44377234 #>>44377268 #>>44377361 #>>44377524 #>>44377663 #>>44377759 #>>44377818 #>>44378537 #>>44378591 #>>44378915 #>>44379216 #>>44380359 #>>44382462 #>>44383491 #>>44384124 #>>44384673 #>>44384735 #>>44385178 #>>44385385 #>>44386691 #
diegof79 ◴[] No.44378591[source]
Google suffers from Microsoft's issues: it has products for almost everything, but its confusing product messaging dilutes all the good things it does.

I like Gemini 2.5 Pro, too, and recently, I tried different AI products (including the Gemini Pro plan) because I wanted a good AI chat assistant for everyday use. But I also wanted to reduce my spending and have fewer subscriptions.

The Gemini Pro subscription is included with Google One, which is very convenient if you use Google Drive. But I already have an iCloud subscription tightly integrated with iOS, so switching to Drive and losing access to other iCloud functionality (like passwords) wasn’t in my plans.

Then there is the Gemini chat UI, which is light years behind the OpenAI ChatGPT client for macOS.

NotebookLM is good at summarizing documents, but the experience isn’t integrated with the Gemini chat, so it’s like constantly switching between Google products without a good integrated experience.

The result is that I end up paying a subscription to Raycast AI because the chat app is very well integrated with other Raycast functions, and I can try out models. I don’t get the latest model immediately, but it has an integrated experience with my workflow.

My point in this long description is that by being spread across many products, Google is losing on the UX side compared to OpenAI (for general tasks) or Anthropic (for coding). In just a few months, Google tried to catch up with v0 (Google Stitch), GH Copilot/Cursor (with that half-baked VSCode plugin), and now Claude Code. But all the attempts look like side-projects that will be killed soon.

replies(6): >>44378855 #>>44380394 #>>44385516 #>>44385777 #>>44385922 #>>44386414 #
krferriter ◴[] No.44380394[source]
I subscribed to Google One through the Google Photos iOS app because I wanted photos I took on my iPhone to be backed up to Google. When I switched to Android and went into Google One to increase my storage capacity in my Google account, I found that it was literally impossible, because the subscription was tied to my iCloud account. I even got on a line with Google Support about it and they told me yeah it's not even possible on their side to disconnect my Google One subscription from Apple. I had to wait for the iCloud subscription to Google One to end, and then I was able to go into Google One and increase my storage capacity.
replies(1): >>44380722 #
bilalq ◴[] No.44380722[source]
The root problem here lies with Apple. It's so frustrating how they take a 30% cut for the privilege of being unable to actually have a relationship with your customers. Want to do a partial refund (or a refund at all)? Want to give one month free to an existing subscriber? Tough luck. Your users are Apple's customers, not yours.
replies(4): >>44381634 #>>44382344 #>>44384230 #>>44384241 #
1. kridsdale3 ◴[] No.44381634[source]
I implemented Google One integration in an iOS app. This comment chain is accurate. Users want to pay with Apple (like other app subscriptions) but then your “account” is inside their payments world. Which is super confusing since users (rightly) think they are dealing with their Google account.
replies(1): >>44387373 #
2. zo1 ◴[] No.44387373[source]
Sounds like the analysts and product owners didn't really want to solve this problem. Instead they ticked the boxes, got the bonuses, and the devs never questioned it and just implemented it for fear of being PIPed.

I'm sure there is technically nothing that stopped you from treating this "Pay with Apple" thing as just another payment method inside the google account, except maybe additional complexity and red-tape.

Seen this many times when PMs, POs, and Devs code by features instead of trying to actually solve something. I don't even want to know what mess of a database schema is behind this monstrosity.