Google's Antigravity bait and switch • Hacker News Board

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#11

Post by metalliqaz » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:27 PM UTC

sschueller wrote: post #6

I pay for google "Starter" workspace. Recently I started to get harassed to upgrade. Big button in gmail, large notifications on top of my mail in the mobile app etc. Also two other buttons to get me to turn on AI features I don't need. I already pay a lot, I don't want to pay double just not to be harassed. Having buttons to features that I would have to pay extra for is one thing. But having notifications and large…

The market demands INFINITE GROWTH

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#12

Post by embedding-shape » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:28 PM UTC

MisterKent wrote: post #9

embedding-shape wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How did Google blow their AI lead? What lead? Maybe because I'm mostly using AI/LLMs for development, but neither Google, Anthropic, xAI or anyone else has ever been in the lead, OpenAI always had the best models in my mind, as long as you're comparing the "top" plans between all of them. Besides, they all seem to shoot themselves in the foot, OpenAI included, seems the only thing that differs is how often and how…

Wow. Didn't realize OAI was astroturfing hacker news now...

All the labs astroturf all the social media, HN is not unique and OpenAI wouldn't be the only ones. I even receive offers sometimes on my email put in my HN profile, asking me to post about their project in exchange for money.

Be skeptical of anything you read online, not just what you think is "obvious astroturf".

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#13

Post by radres » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

Sadly since couple of years or so ago we forgot about UX. Or quality in general. I have a companion which tells me I did everything right before pushing to prod. WCGW

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#14

Post by embedding-shape » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:29 PM UTC

HDThoreaun wrote: post #10

embedding-shape wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How did Google blow their AI lead? What lead? Maybe because I'm mostly using AI/LLMs for development, but neither Google, Anthropic, xAI or anyone else has ever been in the lead, OpenAI always had the best models in my mind, as long as you're comparing the "top" plans between all of them. Besides, they all seem to shoot themselves in the foot, OpenAI included, seems the only thing that differs is how often and how…

Google invented transformers. They had LLMs before openAI existed.

Great, tell me again who put the Transformer into LLMs?

Also, if we're going backwards, who invented neural networks, does that mean that person also then "had LLMs before OpenAI existed"?

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#15

Post by glitchc » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:30 PM UTC

"..and you will learn to like it!"

--someone important

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#16

Post by marginalx » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:31 PM UTC

drdrek wrote: post #3

I'm very surprised, goggle are usually known for their customer focused approach and long standing support of legacy systems!

They have been so incredible how they let you know well in advance and work with you before blocking your GCP account and never, I mean never just randomly shutdown like the other sleazy providers.

This is a huge surprise, never thought I would see this in my life time.

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#17

Post by andrewjneumann » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:32 PM UTC

Google Enterprise accounts are sunsetting AI Ultra in favor of consumption based pricing at the end of the month. It’s unclear how limits for AI Ultra might change for gmail users. Flash3.5 is much better at coding, but also more expensive the pervious flash models.

So much for AI getting cheaper.

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#18

Post by ozgung » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:33 PM UTC

I want to Ask HN relating to this: What can be the motivation behind this change? Is this the preferred way of using AI coding tools nowadays? I've been using Antigravity mainly because of its tab completions. So I can work in code like in a traditional way and AI assists me. But it was a broken experience and now they are moving away from IDE based tool. The alternative is you write the prompt and it does everything. Is this the standard SW development workflow in 2026?

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#19

Post by fluffyspork » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:33 PM UTC

satvikpendem wrote: post #4

Sevii wrote: post #2

How did Google blow their AI lead? Why is Google the 2nd or 3rd tier player in the AI coding market? Why can't GCP supplant AWS? Because google can't help but constantly shoot its customers and itself in the foot.

No, it's more that Gemini models are simply not very good for coding compared to the top two. Even with Antigravity I use Claude models.

Gemma 4 31b is better for coding than Gemini in my limited testing on a small C project single source file project, less than 1000 lines. Setting temperature to 0 gives better results for me. It seems like Gemini ignores the system prompt more and the default reasoning output seems more incoherent.

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#20

Post by infecto » Thu, May 21, 2026, 2:33 PM UTC

MisterKent wrote: post #9

embedding-shape wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How did Google blow their AI lead? What lead? Maybe because I'm mostly using AI/LLMs for development, but neither Google, Anthropic, xAI or anyone else has ever been in the lead, OpenAI always had the best models in my mind, as long as you're comparing the "top" plans between all of them. Besides, they all seem to shoot themselves in the foot, OpenAI included, seems the only thing that differs is how often and how…

Wow. Didn't realize OAI was astroturfing hacker news now...

I probably wouldn’t say they always had the best model but for years OAI was definitely pushing the limits both on model quality and product offerings. It was not until the last year or so that Anthropic started punching above their weight.