Live data from Hacker News

Google's Antigravity bait and switch

0xsid.com

41–50 of 369 posts

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#41
post #26
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.

They had the lead for maybe a week or two. Now, only Apple is further behind.

Apple may be behind, and even getting sued for false advertising around AI features, but at least they haven’t spent hundreds of billions of dollars with no indication of how they’ll make their money back.

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#42
post #3

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

I'll echo this. They're very good at consistent support and never pulling the rug. The folks at Railway have nothing but the wildest praises to sing.

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#43

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…

OpenAI literally wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for Google's work in the space.

Who wouldn't exists if someone else didn't invent something else, which wouldn't exists...

We're all standing on the shoulders of giants here, I don't think one party is more responsible than someone else, unless you're specifically involved with the specific technology, then you can attribute it to them.

So yes, Google's researchers might have invented the Transformer, but OpenAI researchers invented GPT. Does it matter we credit "LLMs" more to one than the other? I don't think so, especially in this context it's highly irrelevant. Google didn't have the "LLM lead" before LLMs even existed...

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#45
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It was not until the last year or so that Anthropic started punching above their weight. Anthropic's stuff been useful for the last two years I'd say, especially in the beginning of Claude Code, but as soon as the Codex TUI was available, I was daily-driving both of them, literally executing the same prompts for each of them and comparing the final results, and Codex simply writes better code in 9/10 cases (but sti…

Claude Code has only been around for a year and change. At least for our internal tests 2 years ago Anthropic models started to at least become semi-useful but they still were not great, they struggled with structured output. Prior to that their alignment strategy made the products highly unhelpful in an API context. The past 6 months to a year is where Anthropic has really shined, they have model parity and sometimes taking the lead and more importantly their product offering on the consumer side has crushed it.

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#46
I was surprised people were so willing to jump to closed source IDEs just for access to coding agents. The trade-off you pay for tight integration between the IDE and the coding agent is lock-in because the barrier to switching IDEs is nontrivial.

Your coding environment stands a lower chance of disruption when you use an open source IDE with a CLI agent. Yes it's slightly annoying to separate the agent from the IDE but the benefit is that it's much easier to switch between Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI (now antigravity CLI), etc which means you can more easily benefit from pricing and coding performance differences which seem to change monthly.

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#47
It’s like Google Reader all over again. Because of all these changes, I had to cancel my Google Workspace Ultra plan and switch to a personal developer ultra plan to use Antigravity on a subscription basis, but I still have to use gemini webchat on the workspace, because there is no way to get total privacy from the individual plan. At least they prorate the cancellation and credit the unused time period.

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#48

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.

> So much for AI getting cheaper.

For now, that's DeepSeek: https://api-docs.deepseek.com/quick_start/pricing/ (they have a discount until the end of the month, even after that they will have pretty good prices)

Or GLM or Kimi, Mistral is also surprisingly passable. Or just have to open the wallet and give money to OpenAI or Anthropic for the subsidized tokens.

> Google Enterprise accounts are sunsetting AI Ultra in favor of consumption based pricing at the end of the month.

This whole thing feels a bit like what GitHub did with Copilot, though.

Re: Google's Antigravity bait and switch

#50
post #3

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

As long as the legacy systems have billions of users. Otherwise they get shutdown once people run out of interest.

See https://killedbygoogle.com/

Post reply on HN