i dont understand the concern. they are putting up great financials. you have to invest ahead of the outcome. this is just classic quarterly public company earnings BS, where public markets dont reward innovation investment. they just want crank the handle financials.

The bigger issue is on the model front, can Google compete; Gemini doesnt seem to be able to compete on the heavy expert end; they are doing well on lighter faster models.

People bought Google for the torrential free cashflow, that looks like its gone forever with this new capital intensive model. If that the case then it needs to be valued like a heavy industrial rather than a capital light tech company.

I agree Gemini's value is not at the frontier, but they are making very useful smaller models. 3.5 flash lite is super fast, cheap and token efficient and accepts any kind of input. For large, price-sensitive processing, in consolidated workflows that don't need the latest improvement, it is the best. Perhaps they should focus on improving their dominance on this business, I don't see gemini reaching claude/gpt in coding. But they could be the ones that make it possible, and economically viable, to roll out llms in large scale automation.

Their bigger positive in my opinion is that they have massive amounts of data and are working to vertically integrate with stuff like TPUs.

I've given up on Gemini. It sounds smart but most of what it tells me ends up being wrong or misleading. I might actually hand $20/mo to OpenAI. It's been far more helpful with the random collection of legal and health problems I've thrown at it. My recent comment history is going to make me come across like a shill for them but, holy crap, GPT has been doing amazing things for me at work as well.

I don't get it either... Google has so much talent yet they just can't seem to get it right.

> you have to invest ahead of the outcome

> this is just classic quarterly public company earnings BS, where public markets dont reward innovation investment

Genuine question; but aren't these treating stocks as speculative and on vibes? One can say that these comments could be true for the first signs of cracking of dot com bubble. Sure, Web eventually succeeded but many tech giants from dot com era (AOL/Yahoo and so many more) eventually went to dust for spending too much time on the innovative bandwagon.

During the Dot-com bubble really tried to give this example but IIRC there were companies like pets.com who lost 2$ for every 1$ of sale so how a company treats its financials do matter a lot.

The market doesn't seem to reward innovation sometimes because there have been times the first persons to innovative have actually really failed to capitalize on that innovation and many extremely innovative businesses like Airlines (We can literally fly speak of innovation!) have been terrible businesses investment-wise generally speaking.