Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 616 posts

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#531

Post by satvikpendem »

do_anh_tu wrote: post #513

Man I love Gemini models but these kind of pricing increase is just insanse. I have a little product and I have to keep increasing the price and reduce the limits because of this non-sense, and they did not even let us use the old models in near future, so I forced to update to the new model with basically no to little improvement because I don't even need that much. Google if you can read this, it okay to release ne…

Why don't you just switch to cheaper models? I'm sure DeepSeek is probably enough for you and it's way cheaper. If you want, host your own (or have someone else host) open weight models, I use both embedded and cloud Gemma for some things.

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#532

Post by Oras »

florakel wrote: post #245
m_w_ wrote: post #13

It's a bit disheartening to see no comparison to other models here - and I'm not sure this pushes the curve anywhere. 3.6 flash is more expensive than GLM 5.2 - but seemingly worse, although this post is really light (lite?) on details. It seemed for a time that Google had finally gotten the ball rolling, but I'm doubting that more and more as time passes. We'll see what happens with 3.5 pro I suppose.

It’s really surprising. When Apple announced the multi-billion dollar deal with Google to power Apple Intelligence I thought great things were coming. Instead we are getting more and more bad news: delayed Pro models and AI leadership leaving. I wonder if Apple know something the rest of us don’t know or if they are already regretting their decision.

The bar was quite low with Siri that adding any model would make a huge difference.

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#533

Post by jofzar »

simonw wrote: post #169
rednb wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am growing tired of these pelicans posts every time a new model is published. Feels to me like low effort personal brand promotion. Just sharing my 2 cents.

You and a few other people, but enough people still appreciate the bit that I'm going to keep doing it. They're easy enough to skip - click the little "-" icon and you'll collapse the entire sub-thread.

Imo it's a very stupid test, and should not be used for model performance.

But you bet my ass I check everytime to have a look at see how that pelican looks, it's just a fun check and also interesting to see the cost/results.

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#534

Post by pertymcpert »

awongh wrote: post #493
SyneRyder wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"As of October [2025], OpenAI's compute margins reached 70%, up from 52% at the end of 2024 and double the rate in January 2024, [The Information] said, citing a person familiar with the figures." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-21/openai-se... As for Anthropic, the rumors I remember seeing for their API margins were more like 85-90%, but I don't have a reference at hand for those. But once you know t…

It says the original report was in the Information, which I can't see, but I'm skeptical that they includes the training cost? And how much that changes the figure?

The training costs are well below the profits for each model.

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#535

Post by sidcool »

primaprashant wrote: post #25

Pricing per million input/output tokens: 2.5 Flash: $0.3 / $2.5 3.0 Flash: $0.5 / $3 3.5 Flash: $1.5 / $9 3.6 Flash: $1.5 / $7.5 --- 2.5 Flash-Lite: $0.1 / $0.4 3.1 Flash-Lite: $0.25 / $1.5 3.5 Flash-Lite: $0.3 / $2.5

Why are output tokens costlier?

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#536

Post by retinaros »

postalcoder wrote: post #53

I wonder how big the Pro model is that Google is using behind the scenes to train these smaller ones. Going on baseless speculation, the lack of accompanying pro models with these flash releases either means: 1) the model is too big to be economical, 2) google doesn't have the compute to serve the big model, 3) their big model has too many alignment issues to serve to the public. edit: looks like benchmarks are up on…

Flash versions were often ultra competitive and their best in the range along with openai mini models. Always been gemini most useable and best model with nano b. Frontier is much more competitive. Anthropic haiku is like 2025 flash…

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#537

Post by SubiculumCode »

jgbuddy wrote: post #341
SubiculumCode wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that statement based on token price? More and more it seems that $/token hides as much as it reveals. Token efficiency, tokenizer differences, etc. I'm not saying that you are wrong, I am just saying it is becoming a bit more difficult making statements like this without a bit more research.

It's based on the Artificial Analysis "Intelligence Index vs. Cost per Intelligence Index Task" here: https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence-comparison-tabs Differences in token "density" are accounted for by pricing per task

Thanks

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#538

Post by eitally »

awongh wrote: post #495
WarmWash wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kind of doesn't make sense though, because typically a large org like Google can afford to crush competitors on pricing. They could probably even go toe to toe with chinese model pricing for years without feeling it. Maybe they don't want to price war with the other labs so they can comfortably maintain healthy margins on selling them compute?

Maybe they are hoping that when the bottom drops out they will just be able to buy Anthropic or OpenAI for a few tens of billion.

Google already owns 14% of Anthropic.
Post reply on HN