You have to realize why something like antigravity exists.

There are two usual ways it occurs:

1. Political fights internal to the company resulting in incoherent strategy and products. HN assumes this is almost always the case, and but it's only sometimes the case :).

or

2. A bunch of execs sitting in a room saying stuff like "we have to have a platform with eyeballs that we control where we can surface our AI innovations and tools or else we'll be disintermediated/unable to release stuff that matters" or whatever.

(or both!)

The second part is often a real problem to solve. The first (you have to have a platform) does not follow.

At least two of the main issues with solving these kinds of problems this way (ie antigravity) is:

a. No user actually cares about your strategic problems and isn't interested in helping you. What you release still has to be valuable/etc enough that people are willing to use it over their existing tooling. At least right now, antigravity really isn't.

b. The strategy seems to assume a complete vacuum where it's Google vs existing tools. However, there are tons of large developer companies with the same exact problem of wanting a place they control to surface stuff (or whatever particular problem this is meant to solve). If they opt for the same approach, why would Google's strategy beat them? . If they opt for a different approach, same question.

If you poke there, i suspect you will find nobody has good answers to these questions.

So this approach turns into, at best, skating to where the puck is instead of where it will be.