11–20 of 30 posts
> "I was an early Webpass customer. Back then, before Google acquired it" The monopolization by modern Google is more like it. They're not competitive because they don't have to be.
What is this dumb article? Gemini pro 2.5 is getting talked a lot about in AI circles. AI Studio team is cracked and has been able to avoid the committee virus. Google has problems but this piece is written by someone who is not knowledgeable about this company and the space at all.
> Gemini 2.5 barely made a ripple in the broader tech conversation.
But my sense (vibes from using it) is it's the very best model right now (though I have not tried the $200 a month exclusive openai offerings)
> "I was an early Webpass customer. Back then, before Google acquired it" The monopolization by modern Google is more like it. They're not competitive because they don't have to be.
The other question is if Webpass was a viable business before Google acquired it. It's common for startups to be acquired when they lack a clear path to profitability - a large company has the resources and clout to turn a borderline business into a good one, even if it's a large company as sclerotic as Google.
I just can't work out the economic logic of that. It seems to be then that there are secondary considerations, such as market domination, that provide the value in these transactions. I'm not sure how this argues against my point.
> a large company has the resources and clout to turn a borderline business into a good one
I can't determine why a search and advertising company thought it had the requisite skills to run an ISP or to make it a competitive and profitable business.
> even if it's a large company as sclerotic as Google.
The evidence here is that they failed anyways.
What is this dumb article? Gemini pro 2.5 is getting talked a lot about in AI circles. AI Studio team is cracked and has been able to avoid the committee virus. Google has problems but this piece is written by someone who is not knowledgeable about this company and the space at all.
Agree, they write it off as: > Gemini 2.5 barely made a ripple in the broader tech conversation. But my sense (vibes from using it) is it's the very best model right now (though I have not tried the $200 a month exclusive openai offerings)
Google seems to have understood how important a long context length is and what I absolutely love about AI Studio is that it shows how many tokens you've consumed, so that you know that you should start wrapping it up and move to a new chat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The other question is if Webpass was a viable business before Google acquired it. It's common for startups to be acquired when they lack a clear path to profitability - a large company has the resources and clout to turn a borderline business into a good one, even if it's a large company as sclerotic as Google.
> It's common for startups to be acquired when they lack a clear path to profitability I just can't work out the economic logic of that. It seems to be then that there are secondary considerations, such as market domination, that provide the value in these transactions. I'm not sure how this argues against my point. > a large company has the resources and clout to turn a borderline business into a good one I can't de…
Startups are often unprofitable despite having a good product. Large companies have an easy time of making good products profitable, but a difficult time in developing good products from scratch.
> It seems to be then that there are secondary considerations, such as market domination, that provide the value in these transactions.
Undoubtedly! But a profitable startup that is dominating a market would not be acquired for a small amount of money (or at all).
> I can't determine why a search and advertising company thought it had the requisite skills to run an ISP or to make it a competitive and profitable business.
Google makes the majority of its money on ads. That being said, it's absolutely brainless to ignore YouTube, Waymo, Pixel, Cloud, etc., etc. when talking about Google's business. All of these would be unicorns if they were independent companies.
"The company remains trapped in its “10 blue links” jail, even as the world moves toward direct, conversational AI interfaces." I don't want conversational AI interfaces. I like search. If I lose that because it's a losing model, then so be it. But I don't see the point in telling Google to follow somebody else's trend. They suck in so many ways, but this doesn't add to it. I find this kind of "what have you done for…
Link are good for search. Where wherever algo leads you to data that may have information you are looking for.
On the other hand, if I just want the answer to a specific question, then links, that we tolerated for so long are bad. They are bad because once presented I now I have to dig and sort through the data to find the answer. It will nearly always be in a different format than the last and take away mental stamina that could be applied to the actual task I am trying to accomplish.
Google, if they stick to links, will continue to be a good search company. The problem is people don’t and did not actually want to search, they simply wanted answers. And thus this is why the entire industry of search will probably go away.
Google is going to have to make a decision. Continue to be search, a product in which demand is dwindling, or be in the business is providing answers.