Remix.run Logo
timmmmmmay 2 hours ago

Google fucks up 90% of their products, why do you think Gemini is in the 10%?

H8crilA 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Google has barely released a successful product in 20 years.

Yizahi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Depend on the definition of the "product". For example some banal cloud storage in which everyone competes. And it's an "old" product, despite being invisibly improved behind the scenes, just like at any other provider. Google has pretty competitive storage AND they are fully abusing Android integration for AND they have pretty good bundling of that storage with other products, including, you've guessed it - LLM Gemini. So say a person is not a professional user of LLMs like a developer burning tokens in a dozen accounts simultaneously. A person has a phone and eventually memory runs out, so he buys a one click Google storage for 4 bucks. And suddenly he has Gemini Pro included too. So why pay 20 bucks to Anthropic, when Google costs 1/5 of that AND has other stuff bundled too?

So maybe Google is lagging on truly new products (btw, does Gemini itself with its TPUs count as a new product? I'd say yes), but "old" products are entrenched enough to carry them and compete.

rvnx 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google Cloud is good and successful. Except they can't implement billing hard caps, or pretend they can't.

asdfman123 44 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Google is good at buying existing products and scaling them, which is exactly what they did with DeepMind.

Hamuko 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I thought that the likes of Android, Google Docs, Google Translate, etc. were fairly successful. Chrome and ChromeOS also seem fairly popular too.

gregable 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of those are getting pretty close to 20 years ago.

atlimar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This year:

chromeos is 17

android is 18

chrome is 18

google docs is 20

google translate is 20

stock_toaster 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

In retrospect, it is wild how good/successful google was 17-20 years ago!

rvnx 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

Few years ago, we had Google Bard, the ancestor of Gemini, which was supposed to be an AI LLM, and when you right-clicked the page, it was a fake page with hardcoded sentences in a .js file...

davnicwil an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

well, it's basically existential, so the incentive is there to not only get it very right but also to limit the delta with how right anyone else gets it. The same can't really be said of the long tail of products Google have done.

Look to GCP as an example. It had to be done, with similar competitive dynamics, it was done very well.

Look to Android as another.

sekai an hour ago | parent [-]

> well, it's basically existential, so the incentive is there to not only get it very right but also to limit the delta with how right anyone else gets it. The same can't really be said of the long tail of products Google have done.

I've yet to see anything that threatens Google's ad monopoly.

davnicwil 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

I mean I guess this is classic disruption theory.

It's not that a dominant position goes away overnight. In fact that would be precisely the impetus to spur the incumbent to pivot immediately and have a much better chance of winning in the new paradigm.

It's that it, with some probability, gets eaten away slowly and the incumbent therefore cannot let go of the old paradigm, eventually losing their dominance over some period of years.

So nobody really knows how LLMs will change the search paradigm and the ads business models downstream of that, we're seeing that worked out in real time right now, but it's definitely high enough probability that Google see it and (crucially) have the shareholder mandate to act on it.

That's the existential threat and they're navigating it pretty well so far. The strategy seems balanced, measured, and correct. As the situation evolves I think they have every chance of actually not being disrupted should it come to that.

xmprt 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because Google has the money to build 10 different versions/iterations of Gemini and can essentially force one to work. They have most people's data and most people use them for mail/search/browser/maps as well.

In my opinion though this is a race to the bottom rather than a winner takes all situation so I don't think anyone is coming out ahead once the dust settles.

stouset 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Google built ten different chat products, how did that go?

XorNot an hour ago | parent [-]

Does it matter? Microsoft won by default with Teams because it actually turns out no one cares about chat or even has a choice in it: employees use whatever the company picks.

kingkawn 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This was the same argument made for Google Wave and Google+ and both completely tanked

thewebguyd 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The tech behind wave eventually made its way into Google docs though and pioneered collaborative document editing, so wasn't a complete failure even though the product itself was killed.

No comment on Google+, Google has a storied history of failure on any kind of social media/chat type products.

Where Google wins is just simply having enough money to outlive anyone else. As the saying goes "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" In this case, Google is the market and they can just keep throwing money at the wall until OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. go under.

vidarh an hour ago | parent [-]

Google Docs has no features remotely like what Google Wave was.

And there was collaborative editing long before Google Wave.

hackingonempty 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Social media has strong network effects that keeps competitors at bay. What network effects are OpenAI/Anthropic/etc accumulating?

heavyset_go 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, but Gemini is actually good and so are their APIs.

infecto 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agree. Look at how miserably MSFT has failed at integrating AI tastefully in their business.

Google makes money selling ads. Nothing else matters.

measurablefunc an hour ago | parent [-]

They target those ads by ingesting as many signals as possible from as many input devices & sensors as they can possibly convince people to use. They make a lot of money from advertising b/c they have managed to convince the most number of people to give them as many behavioral signals as possible & they will continue to do so. They kill products only when the signal is not valuable enough to improve their advertising business but that's clearly not the case w/ AI.

root_axis 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because the product quality doesn't matter if the competition isn't making any money.

dlahoda 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

google the only ai which invests mixing llm ai with real ai, and it seems work well.

dlahoda 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

race to the bottom. google in house cheaper inference hardware. anthropic buys it.

XorNot an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Persistence. Google has a lot more endurance then OpenAI does in this game.

The current AI market is going to destroy anyone who's specialized into it compared to having alternative revenue streams to subsidize it.

moonlighter 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

Does Alphabet/Google have any other significant alternative revenue streams though besides their ad revenue? And won't that decrease significantly the more people use AI tools for research than firing up a google web search? I find myself using Claude more and more doing web research and comparing products/reviews...without getting a single ad served up from Google.

longfacehorrace an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The conclusion Google is engaged in consumer capitalism is wild.

They're engaged in computing research and merely engage in consumer capitalism as a consequence of political and social constraints.

Products are a means to an end not the goal.

OpenAI and Anthropic are product companies and are more likely to fail like most product companies do as they will lack broad and wide depth.

Google has experience in design, implementation, and 24/7 ops with every type of SaaS there is. They can bin LLMs tomorrow and still make bank. Same cannot be said for OAI or Anthropic.

afavour 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do they though?

Google does things I hate with their products. But the money printing machine keeps going whrrr faster and faster.