[c7b]

> Theoretically Apple can spend just as much. What are the outcomes though?

The GP was talking about Google specifically, and their outcomes on AI are nothing to scoff at. They had a rocky late start, but they seem to have gotten over that. Their models are now very much competitive with the startups. And it's not just that have more money to spend. They probably have more training data than anyone in the world, and they also have more infrastructure, more manpower, more of a global footprint than the startups.

The Innovator's Dilemma is an anecdotal, maybe a statistical relationship at best, but not a fundamental law of nature. When an established company has everything it should take to become a leader in a new industry in theory, and in practice their products are already on par with the industry leaders, you know at some point it becomes rational to think that maybe they might become a leader.

[kasey_junk]

Google didn’t have a late start, they invented the tech, had bespoke hardware in place that supported it and have money to spend.

I don’t have any idea what comes next but Google and Microsoft look bad right now because they can’t execute a product strategy.

My personal bias is that either ms or Google or both will land just fine after it all shakes out but they started with a lead and are now playing catch up.

[darkwizard42]

Is this true now?

The models are better, the integrations are now in your email, search, youtube, docs, spreadsheets, slides, Gemini is now higher than ChatGPT in the App Stores

I think you are right with the timeline being Google was infinitely ahead in the beginning, did nothing, then fell behind, but right now, they feel ahead -- established even, and distributing AI into all their products

[Bnjoroge]

they did have a late start in terms of productionizing the models. It's definitely improved but there was a time where Gemini and the associated tools werent as good as claude/oai