To the degree there is a moat, I do not think it will be effective at keeping people in. I had already been somewhat disillusioned with the AI hype, but now I am also disillusioned with the company who I thought was the best actor in the space. I am happy that there is unlikely to be a dominant single winner like there was for web search or for operating systems. That is, unless there's a significant technological jump, rather than the same gradual improvement that all the AI companies are making.
Likewise: a faulty, unproven, hallucinating, error-prone service, however good, was a good value at approx 25 USD/month in an "absolutely all you can eat", wholesale regime ...
... now? Reputational risk aside, they force their users to appraise their offering in terms of actual value offered, in the market.-
That's a good thing, right?
On the rare occasion that it does, I try to circle back and mitigate the root cause so that I can resume a loyalty-free life thereafter.
When a provider gets memory working well, I expect them to use this to be a huge moat - ie. they won't let you migrate the memories, because rather than being human readable words they'll be unintelligible vectors.
I imagine they'll do the same via API so that the network has a memory of all previous requests for the same user.
Hell, “just open a new chat and start over” is an important tool in the toolbox when using these models. I can’t imagine a more frustrating experience than opening a new chat to try something from scratch only for it to reply based on the previous prompt that I messed up.
As if google would say that yes, emails are $5/mo, but there's actually a limit on number of emails daily, and also number of characters in the email. It just feels so illegal to nerf a product that much.
Same with AI companies changing routing and making models dumber from time to time.
I'm not sure what harm you think you're suffering from, and what a proper remedy might be, if you think it's illegal. I don't know if I would go that far, as there are all kinds of words most terms of service use to somehow make it so that you have already acknowledged and agreed to whatever they decide to do. So a lawyer will probably be helpful there as well.
You pay for Gemini by the token and you get the full firehose. It costs money, but less than Opus and it smokes that.
It just works. Gemini 2.5 Pro is the king of AI coding and literally everything else has to catch up.
Trust me, I can't wait until there's a model that can run locally that's as good...but for now there isn't.
Always just look at the token cost and get used the token economics. Go into it paying. You'll get better results. I think people thinking they were somehow cheating and getting away with something similar (or better) for $20/mo are in for a big surprise.
I don't know if I would say they should have known better of course. I think Anthropic and Cursor and Windsurf were hiding it a bit. Now it's all coming out into the open and I guess you know the saying, if it's too good to be true...
Gemini Advanced offered 2.5 Pro with nearly unlimited rate limits, then nerfed it to 100/day.
OpenAI silently nerfed the maximum context window of reasoning models in their Pro plan.
Accompanying the nerf is usually a psy op, like nerfing to 50/day then increasing it to 100/day so the anchoring effect reduces the grievance.
It's a smart ploy because as much as we like to say there's no moat, the user does face provider switching costs (time and effort), which serves as a mini-moat for status quo provider.
So providers have an incentive to rope people in with a loss leader, and then rug pull once they gained market share. Maybe 40% of the top 5% of Claude users are now too accustomed to their Claude-based workflows, and inertia will keep them as customers, but now they're using the more expensive API instead. Anthropic won.
Modern bait and switch, although done intelligently so no laws are broken.