7 ms·
I think google ends up the winner. They can keep chugging along and just wait for everyone else to go bankrupt. I guess apple sees it too since the signed with
by chasd00 8mo ago
I think google ends up the winner. They can keep chugging along and just wait for everyone else to go bankrupt. I guess apple sees it too since the signed with google and not
OpenAI.
- piker 8mo agoAnd what about Microsoft?
- napolux 8mo agoSee Apple in my previous comment
- mrbungie 8mo agoThey don't have the know how (except by proxy via OpenAI) nor custom hardware and somehow they are even worse at integrating AI into their products than Google.
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoThey don’t need to. Just like Amazon they are seeing record revenues from Azure because of their third party LLM hosting platforms only being gated because no one can get enough chips right now
- napolux 8mo agodownvote all you want. google has all the money to keep up and just wait for the others to die. apple is a different story, btw, can probably buy openai or anthropic, but for now they're just waiting like google, and since they need to provide users AI after the failure with Apple Intelligence, they prefer to pay for Google and wait for the others to fight against each other. openai and anthropic know already what will happen if they go public :)
- aurizon 8mo agoGoogle is vulnerable in search and that already shows as we see a decline as many parallel paths emerge. At the beginning it was a simple lookup for valid information and it became dominant - then pages of pay ranked preference spots filled pages that obscured what you wanted = it became evil.
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoWe see no such thing. Google just announces review revenue and profit and Apple hinted at it not seeing any decline in revenue from their search deal with Google which is performance based.
- wooger 8mo agoAnd Gemini is already integrated into the results page and gives useful answers instantly, alongside advertising... What problem for google are you seeing?
- r0b05 8mo agoWhat will happen if they go public?
- mrcwinn 8mo agoThat’s not a well informed argument. Even if Apple could finance the $1T+ it would cost to buy Anthropic - they’re not making that money back by making the iPhone a little better. The only way to monetize is by selling, as Anthropic does, enterprise services to businesses. And that’s not Apple’s “DNA,” to use their language.
- sethops1 8mo agoThis is the conclusion I came to as well. Either make your own hardware, or drown paying premiums until you run out of money. For a while I was hopeful for some competition from AMD but that never panned out.
- m-schuetz 8mo agoAlso Gemini works absolutely fantastic right now. I find it provides better results for coding tasks compared to ChatGPT
- logicallee 8mo agohave you compared it with Claude Code at all? Is there a similar subscription model for Gemini as Claude? Does it have an agent like Claude Code or ChatGPT Codex? what are you using it for? How does it do with large contexts? (Claude AI Code has a 1 million token context).
- airstrike 8mo agoit's nowhere near claude opus but claude and claude code are different things
- logicallee 8mo ago(Claude Code now runs claude opus, so they're not so different.) >it's [Gemini] nowhere near claude opus Could you be a bit more specific, because your sibling reply says "pretty close to opus performance" so it would help if you gave additional information about how you use it and how you feel the two compare. Thanks.
- dudeinhawaii 8mo agoMy take has been... Gemini 3.1 (and Gemini 3) are a lot smarter than Claude Opus 4.6 But... Gemini 3 series are both mediocre at best in agentic coding. Single shot question(s) about a code problem vs "build this feature autonomously". Gemini's CLI harness is just not very good and Gemini's approach to agentic coding leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't perform the double-checking that Codex does, it's slower than Claude, it runs off and does things without asking and not clearly explaining why.
- landl0rd 8mo ago- yes, pretty close to opus performance - yes - yes (not quite as good as CC/Codex but you can swap the API instead of using gemini-cli) - same stuff as them - better than others, google got long (1mm) context right before anyone else and doesn't charge two kidneys, an arm, and a leg like anthropic
- Aboutplants 8mo agoThe minute Apple chose Google, OpenAI became a dead duck. It will float for a while but it cannot compete with the likes of Google, their unlimited pockets and better yet their access to data
- awongh 8mo agoI think it points to OpenAI trying to pivot to leveraging their brand awareness head start and optimizing for either ads or something like the Jony Ive device- focusing on the consumer side. For now people identify LLMs and AI with the ChatGPT brand. This seems like it might be the stickiest thing they can grab ahold of in the long term.
- dakolli 8mo agoAds in GPT, might literally be the worst business decision ever made. Google can get away with Ads, its expected from them, but not OpenAI
- raw_anon_1111 8mo agoOpenAI is not going to fund themselves with $20 subscriptions and advertising enough to be profitable.
- gruturo 8mo ago> OpenAI is not going to fund themselves with $20 subscriptions and advertising enough to be profitable. Then it's doomed. Which is also my opinion, I don't disagree at all with you.
- neya 8mo agoGoogle is the new Open AI. Open AI is the new Google. Guess who wants to shove advertisements into paying customers' face and take a % of their revenues for using their models to build products? Not Google.
- Forgeties79 8mo agoDon’t worry, Google is profiting off of your data one way or another lol
- SecretDreams 8mo ago> Guess who wants to shove advertisements into paying customers' face and take a % of their revenues for using their models to build products? Not Google. But, also, probably google.
- neya 8mo ago'Probably' isn't a good counter argument to Open AI's 'certainly'.
- ipaddr 8mo agoThe majority of people who use Google for AI encounter it at the top of an ad filled search engine.
- neya 8mo agoA search engine which you leech for free, not pay and get ads shoved onto your face. The core argument here is getting ads into your face despite having paid for the product. And also, no one is forcing you to use Google when you have so many alternatives.
- pell 8mo ago>Not Google. Google's main revenue source (~ 75%) is advertising. They will absolutely try to shove in ads into their AI offerings. They simply don't have to do it this quickly.
- stego-tech 8mo ago[dead]
- martinald 8mo agoI was thinking about that (I definitely agree with you on the software and data angle). But when you think about it it's actually a bit more complex. Right now (eg) OpenAI buys GPUs from (eg) NVidia, who buys HBM from Samsung and fabs the card on TSMC. Google instead designs the chip, with I assume a significant amount of assistance of Broadcom - at least in terms of manufacturing, who then buys the HBM from the same supplier(s) and fabs the card with TSMC. So I'm not entirely sure if the margin savings are that huge. I assume Broadcom charges a fair bit to manage the manufacturing process on behalf of Google. Almost certainly a lot less than NVidia would charge in terms of gross profit margins, but Google also has to pay for a lot of engineers to do the work that would be done in NVidia. No doubt it is a saving overall - otherwise they wouldn't do it. But I wonder how dramatic it is. Obviously Google has significant upside in the ability to customise their chips exactly how they want them, but NVidia (and to a lesser extent) AMD probably can source more customer workflows/issues from their broader set of clients. I think "Google makes its own TPUs" makes a lot of people think that the entire operation in house, but in reality they're just doing more design work than the other players. There's still a lot of margin "leaking" through Broadcom, memory suppliers and TSMC so I wonder how dramatic it is really is
- coredog64 8mo agoMy take is it's the inference efficiency. It's one thing to have a huge GPU cluster for training, but come inference time you don't need nearly so much. Having the TPU (and models purpose built for TPU) allows for best cost in serving at hyperscale.
- martinald 8mo agoYes potentially - but the OG TPUs were actually very poorly suited for LLM usage - designed for far smaller models with more parallelism in execution. They've obviously adapted the design but it's a risk optimising in hardware like that - if there is another model architecture jump the risk of having a narrow specialised set of hardware means you can't generalise enough.
- hansmayer 8mo agoIt is a rather attractive view, and I used to hold it too. However, seeing as Alphabet recently issued 100-year bonds to finance the AI CapEx bloat, means they are not that far off from the rest of the AI "YOLO"s currently jumping off the cliff ...
- gorgolo 8mo agoIf someone is willing to fund you with a 100y bond, and it gives you extra cash to move even a bit faster, it sounds like a pretty good deal. One thing I don’t get though, if superintelligence is really 5 years away, what’s going to be the point of a fixed-interest 100y bond.
- hansmayer 8mo agoMotorola was I think the last company to issue a 100-year bond in the 90s. Whatever happened to Motorola?
- jazzypants 8mo agoThey have over $100B in cash on hand. I can't pretend to understand their financial dealings, but they have a lot more runway before that cliff than most of the other companies.
- co_king_5 8mo ago[dead]
- echelon 8mo agoYou better hope Anthropic and OpenAI thrive, because a world in which Google is the sole winner is a nightmare. Google's best trick was skirting the antitrust ruling against them by making the judge think they'd "lose" AI. What a joke. Meanwhile they're camping everyone's trademarks, turning them into lucrative bidding wars because they own 92% of the browser URL bars. Try googling for Claude or ChatGPT. Those companies are shelling out hundreds of millions to their biggest competitor to defend their trademarks. If they stop, suddenly they lose 60% of their traffic. Seems unfair, right?
- co_king_5 8mo ago[dead]
- pfraze 8mo ago[flagged]
- palmotea 8mo agoAlso, Sam Altman (at least) gives the impression of being a bit of a manipulative psychopath. Even if there are others out there like him, who are just more competent at hiding their tendencies, I really don't want him to win the "world's richest man" jackpot; it'd be a bad lesson to others. Steve Jobs hero-worship is bad enough.
- PunchTornado 8mo agoI'm waiting to see a more egregious company than openai and a bigger scammer ceo like altman. no, thank you. i hope openai goes bankrupt. especially since the ousting of ilya.
- co_king_5 8mo ago
- butlike 8mo agoIn addition to that, Google and Apple are demonstrated business partners. Google has consistently paid Apple billions to be the default search engine, so they have demonstrated they pay on time and are a known quantity. Imagine if OpenAI evaporated and Siri was left without a backend. It'd be too risky.
- alex1138 8mo agoNow if only Google could a) drop its commitment to censorship and b) stop prioritizing Youtube links in its answers
- xnx 8mo agoIn a few years this will amazingly alway have been obvious to everyone.
- duped 8mo agoGoogle has proven themselves to be incapable of monetizing anything besides ads. One should be deeply skeptical of their ability to bring consumer software to market, and keep it there.