4 ms·

> Google can't as easily burn money I was actually surprised at Google's willingness to offer Gemini 2.5 Pro via AI Studio for free; having this was a signific

> Google can't as easily burn money I was actually surprised at Google's willingness to offer Gemini 2.5 Pro via AI Studio for free; having this was a significant contributor to my decision to cancel my OpenAI subscription.

relistan 2y ago
This is 100% why they did it.
ff4 2y ago
Google offering Gemini 2.5 Pro for free, enough to ditch OpenAI, reminds me of an old tactic. Microsoft gained control in the '90s by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows for free, undercutting Netscape’s browser. This leveraged Windows’ dominance to make Explorer the default choice, sidelining competitors and capturing the browser market. By 1998, Netscape’s share plummeted, and Microsoft controlled access to the web. Free isn’t generous—it’s strategic. Google’s hooking you into their ecosystem, betting you’ll build on their tools and stay. It feels like a deal, but it’s a moat. They’re not selling the model; they’re buying your loyalty.
- ghurtado 2y ago
  > undercutting Netscape’s browser It almost sounds like you're saying that Netscape wasn't free, and I'm pretty sure it was always free, before and after Microsoft Explorer
  - ploxiln 2y ago
    > Netscape, in contrast, sells the consumer version of Navigator for a suggested price of $49. Users can download a free evaluation copy from the Internet, but it expires in 90 days and does not include technical support. https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/19/business/netscape-moves-to-raise-stakes-in-browser-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/19/business/netscape-moves-t...
    - franze 2y ago
      yeah, it was free as the evaluation copy did not really expire. just some features that nobody cared about
    - asadotzler 2y ago
      90% of Netscape users were free users and by late 1997, less than two years after the IPO and massive user growth, it was free to all because of MS's bundling threat. That didn't help. By 2002, MS owned 95% of access to the web. No one has ever reached even close to first mover Netscape or cheater bundled IE since, with the far superior non-profit Firefox managing almost 30% and Chrome from the biggest web player in history sitting "only" at about 65%. Bundling a "good enough" products can do a lot, including take you from near zero to overwhelmingly dominant in 5 years, as MS did.
  - dep_b 2y ago
    It was US$50,- until 1995
- falcor84 2y ago
  The joke's on them, because I don't have any loyalty to an LLM provider. There's very close to zero switching costs, both on the consumer front and the API front; no real distinguishing features and no network effects; just whoever has the best model at this point in time.
  - cousin_it 2y ago
    There is a network effect: more user interaction = more training data. I don't know how important it is, though.
    - pixl97 2y ago
      Yep, this is why android phones are now pointing out their gemini features every moment they can. They want to turn their spying device into an AI spying device.
  - m11a 2y ago
    I feel like they’re trying to increase switching costs. eg was huge reluctance to adopt MCP and each had their own tool framework, until it seemed too big to ignore and everyone was just building MCP tools not OpenAI SDK tools.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    I'm assuming Google's play here is to bleed its competitors of money and raise prices when they're gone. Building top-tier models is extremely expensive and will probably remain so. Even companies that do it "on the cheap," like DeepSeek, pay tens of millions to train a single model, and total expenditures for infrastructure and salaries are estimated to surpass $1 billion. This market has an extremely high cost of entry. So, I guess Google is applying the usual strategy here: undercut competition until it implodes and buy up any promising competitors that arise in the future. Given the current lack of market regulation in the US, this might work.
    - celdon25 2y ago
      They’ll also need a fleet of humanoid robots eventually to compete with Elon’s physical world data collection plans.
cheema33 2y ago
I pay for ChatGPT, Anthropic and Copilot. After using Gemini 2.5 Pro via AI Studio, I plan on canceling all other paid AI services. There is no point in keeping them.
mikehotel 2y ago
From the terms of use: To help with quality and improve our products, human reviewers may read, annotate, and process your API input and output. Google takes steps to protect your privacy as part of this process. This includes disconnecting this data from your Google Account, API key, and Cloud project before reviewers see or annotate it. Do not submit sensitive, confidential, or personal information to the Unpaid Services. https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/terms#data-use-unpaid https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/terms#data-use-unpaid

relistan 2y ago

This is 100% why they did it.

ff4 2y ago

Google offering Gemini 2.5 Pro for free, enough to ditch OpenAI, reminds me of an old tactic. Microsoft gained control in the '90s by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows for free, undercutting Netscape’s browser. This leveraged Windows’ dominance to make Explorer the default choice, sidelining competitors and capturing the browser market. By 1998, Netscape’s share plummeted, and Microsoft controlled access to the web. Free isn’t generous—it’s strategic. Google’s hooking you into their ecosystem, betting you’ll build on their tools and stay. It feels like a deal, but it’s a moat. They’re not selling the model; they’re buying your loyalty.

ghurtado 2y ago
> undercutting Netscape’s browser It almost sounds like you're saying that Netscape wasn't free, and I'm pretty sure it was always free, before and after Microsoft Explorer
- ploxiln 2y ago
  > Netscape, in contrast, sells the consumer version of Navigator for a suggested price of $49. Users can download a free evaluation copy from the Internet, but it expires in 90 days and does not include technical support. https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/19/business/netscape-moves-to-raise-stakes-in-browser-war.html https://www.nytimes.com/1996/08/19/business/netscape-moves-t...
  - franze 2y ago
    yeah, it was free as the evaluation copy did not really expire. just some features that nobody cared about
  - asadotzler 2y ago
    90% of Netscape users were free users and by late 1997, less than two years after the IPO and massive user growth, it was free to all because of MS's bundling threat. That didn't help. By 2002, MS owned 95% of access to the web. No one has ever reached even close to first mover Netscape or cheater bundled IE since, with the far superior non-profit Firefox managing almost 30% and Chrome from the biggest web player in history sitting "only" at about 65%. Bundling a "good enough" products can do a lot, including take you from near zero to overwhelmingly dominant in 5 years, as MS did.
- dep_b 2y ago
  It was US$50,- until 1995
falcor84 2y ago
The joke's on them, because I don't have any loyalty to an LLM provider. There's very close to zero switching costs, both on the consumer front and the API front; no real distinguishing features and no network effects; just whoever has the best model at this point in time.
- cousin_it 2y ago
  There is a network effect: more user interaction = more training data. I don't know how important it is, though.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    Yep, this is why android phones are now pointing out their gemini features every moment they can. They want to turn their spying device into an AI spying device.
- m11a 2y ago
  I feel like they’re trying to increase switching costs. eg was huge reluctance to adopt MCP and each had their own tool framework, until it seemed too big to ignore and everyone was just building MCP tools not OpenAI SDK tools.
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  I'm assuming Google's play here is to bleed its competitors of money and raise prices when they're gone. Building top-tier models is extremely expensive and will probably remain so. Even companies that do it "on the cheap," like DeepSeek, pay tens of millions to train a single model, and total expenditures for infrastructure and salaries are estimated to surpass $1 billion. This market has an extremely high cost of entry. So, I guess Google is applying the usual strategy here: undercut competition until it implodes and buy up any promising competitors that arise in the future. Given the current lack of market regulation in the US, this might work.
  - celdon25 2y ago
    They’ll also need a fleet of humanoid robots eventually to compete with Elon’s physical world data collection plans.

cheema33 2y ago

I pay for ChatGPT, Anthropic and Copilot. After using Gemini 2.5 Pro via AI Studio, I plan on canceling all other paid AI services. There is no point in keeping them.

mikehotel 2y ago

From the terms of use: To help with quality and improve our products, human reviewers may read, annotate, and process your API input and output. Google takes steps to protect your privacy as part of this process. This includes disconnecting this data from your Google Account, API key, and Cloud project before reviewers see or annotate it. Do not submit sensitive, confidential, or personal information to the Unpaid Services. https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/terms#data-use-unpaid https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/terms#data-use-unpaid