None of these tools give the impression of being well-tested software. My guess is that neither OpenAI nor Anthropic actually has the necessary density in expertise to build quality software. Google obviously can build good software _when it really wants to_ but in this space its strategy looks like "build the products the other guys are building, cut whatever corners necessary to do this absolutely as fast as possible".
So even if my initial impressions are more accurate it's quite possible Google wins long term here.
Remember the whole “Taken 3 makes Taken 2 look like Taken 1” meme? Well Google’s latest video generating AI makes any video gen AI I’ve seen up until now look like Taken 3* (sigh, I said 1, ruined it) - and they are seriously impressive on their own.
Edit: By “they” I mean the other video generating AI makes models, not the other Taken movies. I hope Liam Neeson doesn't read HN, because a delivery like that might not make him laugh.
My experience after a month or so of heavy use is exactly this. The AI is rock solid. I'm pretty consistently impressed with its ability to derive insights from the code, when it works. But the client is flaky, the backend is flaky, and the overall experience for me is always "I wish I could just use Claude".
Say 1 in 10 queries craps out (often the client OOMs even though I have 92Gb of RAM). Sounds like a 10% reliability issue but actually it just pushes me into "fuck this I'll just do it myself" so it knocks out like 50% of the value of the product.
(Still, I wouldn't be surprised if this can be fixed over the next few months, it could easily be very competitive IMO).