Yeah, so they are worried about things like CAS that let you use lots of CLI agents from different companies. The fork I'm using lets me use Claude and Codex, and Gemini if I want, but I haven't much lately. Anyway, that sounds like what's happening. Is that wrong?

I think we will need to move to workarounds based on MCP going forwards.

> run CLI agent with an initial prompt

> tell the agent it isn't allowed to directly reply to the user and must use your tool instead. also all of the CLI's original interactive tools are blocked and it has to use your alternatives

> when the agent uses tools in the MCP, it redirects to your GUI's prompt editor

And Antigravity CLI starts working from today, interesting

This is so confusing. So what happens to Gemini Code Assist plans?

What do the Antigravity quotas mean per plan?

Gemini Code Assist goes away i believe

If you're not using an Enterprise license.

This is awful. I got so much use out of it!

Say goodbye to metered usage via API keys you control, and hello to opaque pricing and usage limits.

Welcome to the Google graveyard, Gemini CLI.

Not that it will be missed much. Using it was the worst experience out of any harness.

Copilot CLI would like a word

You have not tried Antigravity yet?

Stop working? It never even started working for me, I tried it and always just got errors or lack of quota.

Google really can’t help themselves but to have some internal re-org kill off a public thing people are actively using. It’s honestly impressive how consistent they are.

The rest of out here watching usage and telemetry to decide where to invest, meanwhile, over at Google…

What if their telemetry shows very low usage? I've seen virtually no discussion of Gemini CLI online.

There are 13,700 forks of its repo on Github.

If anything, I suspect closing the source for their coding agent may have been part of the goal.

If the repo is already forked, what difference does it make if Google supports it or not? The community can just continue development if they so choose

google can kill your account for using an unsupported harness when/if they choose

Complete bs. Gemini models are on OpenRouter just like any other models.

But then you have to pay by the token instead of the subsidized subscription prices

oh, so finally it is about money not open source.

It's the code they develop going forward that matters.

Forks don't mean anything anymore, especially on an AI-related repo. 99% of them are automated.

Whats to discuss, it works, it does the job, cant complain.

There's a fair amount of enterprise usage. It's a really good product, despite the Claude hype. Anthropic is a PITA to deal with, and it's slow as shit weekday morning Eastern time.

Gemini CLI for Enterprise will continue.

> If your organization uses Gemini CLI or our IDE extensions via a Gemini Code Assist Standard or Enterprise license, or if your organization uses Gemini Code Assist for GitHub through Google Cloud, your access remains unchanged.

I use all 3 compared to what do you think Gemini CLI is a good product? (my only use case for it now is triple checking specifications for drift inconsistencies beyond that I find it pretty lacking compared to codex and cc).

I think for the average corporate person in a non-software company, the "out of box" experience is better with Gemini. It's also cheap.

Once you get deeper into it, both Codex and Claude have better integrations with skills, etc. I sort of "discovered" skills via GStack and now use a few things, I find Claude's performance infuriating, but it can do more things. I happily pay $200 for Claude now, mostly for my own personal stuff. I think Gemini is better at external data sourcing and coding complex math.

But note this is my anecdotal take, mostly in the context of hobby projects. I'm a journeyman AI slinger at best.

Except complaints that it's horrible, you mean?

The usual playbook is they rename it a few times first, then they kill it.

Sometimes it becomes 11 different chat applications among the way.

It's technically a chat application. Except you're chatting with an LLM instead of friends and family.

And building a chat app is how you get promoted at Google.

And then later re-use the name for another product which is almost but not entirely unlike the original.

Another tombstone in Google Graveyard soon [1].

[1] https://killedbygoogle.com/

Thanks

Even thought there are people using, it doesn’t mean they see a future in it. Google is the best when it comes to analytics and trends. If they see a product is expected to fail, which in this case it was, they simply kill it and move on instead of wasting resources saving a sinking ship.

Of course, something could’ve been improved, but that’s just how they operate.

I could be completely wrong though

I read through the docs. There is no mention of whether programmatic usage or Agent Client Protocol will continue be supported in Antigravity CLI.

People are saying it doesn't have ACP at all. We don't know if that's an intentional decision or a temporary gap.

I don't think it's happening because Antigravity's concurrent core architecture is incompatible with ACP. For example Antigravity supports running multiple agent and process threads in the background while keeping the main thread free for conversation. ACP can't really support that.

To put it in ad speak, ACP is too basic for how advanced the agy harness is

FWIW, centralising on a single harness in Antigravity seems like a great idea.

Gemini CLI was open source (Apache 2): https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli

Antigravity CLI is not - the repo has a README and an animated gif demo: https://github.com/google-antigravity/antigravity-cli

There's a comment from a Googler that there's a chance Antigravity will be open sourced.

"Chance" is not giving much compared to write lively Gemini-CLI repo

theres a chance I will be the first multi trillionaire to have a platinum debut album in each of the music genres.

Don't worry, it's just a VSCode fork

it was* [0]

[0] https://xcancel.com/i/status/2056801834652594521

This is my read too. Google wants more control here. They have been banning accounts and the repo for gemini-cli is a dumpster fire of issues

I would love to sign up for antigravity cli but when I click on Get Plan it says: “This account isn't eligible for Google Antigravity benefits included with Google AI plans Google Antigravity benefits included with Google AI plans aren't available in some countries or for people under a certain age. Learn more about Google One feature eligibility.” With a button that says “Explore Google AI Plans” that when I click on it takes me to my Drive.

I can’t believe our Google account setup is different from any other startup in SF. Anyone have success with this? Do they even have a bot at Google that tracks this attrition?

> or for people under a certain age

I've been waiting for the "Google decides kids shouldn't vibe code" headline over the Antigravity age verification shenanigans.

This is the main reason I’m not using Gemini for work. Google won’t let me pay for it. I pay for just about every AI service under the sun but Google needs to refuse my card, account, location or a combination of these.

But they happily take my money for a couple of Workspce accounts.

It seems that Google has those product Managers that work barely an hour a day and have zero idea about anything at all. Those in "Life in a day of XYX" sort of videos that were trendy at one point.

This is why people use Gemini on OpenRouter. Same model, don't have to deal with Google billing.

So it gains feature-parity with the Gemini vscode extension, which has stopped working the day they released it.

agy cli is a disaster and half baked product. It wont even resize itself when i maximize terminal.

That's almost certainly an issue with your terminal than agy.

Though I do hate how most agents have standardized on terminal TUIs (despite being incorrectly called CLIs) precisely because terminals are a complete mess

This is the right move but I don’t know if I am ready to try them again. I am still bitter from the significantly reduced quotas, even on Ultra, their highest tier. Claude became unusable for me.

It would be much better if they just gave up on Gemini for coding and exclusively adopted Claude models. Even Deep Mind folks themselves prefer Claude over Gemini[1].

[1]: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-deepmind-ai-tool-divi...

Confirmed. It's still a bad idea to use it. If you hit your quota, it doesn't refill for a week.

Even if they adopted Claude over Gemini they'd probably still try to nickel and dime customers by providing an increasingly degraded experience. The problem isn't Gemini itself, it's all the throttling, quantization and limit reductions that Google does to it.

Whoever is in charge of these decisions, is absolutely disconnected with the reality. First they sent a message saying the Ultra plan is ending, with no other option for a Workspace use to buy an equivalent plan. It was suppose to be active tilll June or July 7 , that's all. So the users are not suppose to know how they will need to plan or budget and just guess. I read once that after a certain level , the managers need to make their own decisions. Seems like someone just came in and decided that all the Gemini CLI and Antigravity needs to be one , because some other manager thought Antigravity was a better name than Gemini or whatever and started this mess in the first place. I am loosing my faith in these managers and Google.

> Whoever is in charge of these decisions, is absolutely disconnected with the reality.

The problem is with your perception of reality. Google doesn't operate for the outside, you're on the outside, Google operates for Google and people in Google care about themselves first, then Google, and then -- if t all, outside.

I am really curious to know about the people who are downvoting this. I really want to know why, genuinely.

Your take is cynical, but sensible in a massive org with dysfunctional culture that jades and burns out engineers until they only care about their own personal gains and everything else is secondary. I think people project their values in situations that don't have place for them and get upset

> I think people project their values in situations that don't have place for them and get upset

That is a very useful bit of wisdom that one can overlook easily, but once articulated can explain a fair bot behaviour.

> bot behavior

Freudian slip?

I meant a fair bit; but a fair bot will just do as well these days.

Public companies operate for the benefit of shareholders.

Which is "Google" in this sense, the employees are just workers, Google is not a coop. Google operates for Google, or it's owners which are the shareholders. No?

Two points to consider:

    a) A vast majority of Google FTE are actually shareholders via equity grants, so there's that. Not a coop, but a taste of it.

    b) The way you make more money at Google is by getting promoted. And unfortunately, the way you get promoted at Google is by looking like you are actively innovating, but without any measured correlation to the actual impact on the bottom line of the company. The result is typically the kind of shite everyone is complaining about in this thread.

The issue is that your comment is a rationalization. In reality, evidence beats logic any day of the week. Just because what you say is logical doesn't mean it's true. As such, it's not adding anything to the conversation.

It's the same thing they continuously do with GCP: put internal needs first and put the customer last. Nobody at Google ever got fired for screwing over customers.

Combining Gemini and Antigravit is probably good.

But that i pay for some 2tb storage and i'm a 'pro' user while not really a 'pro'user and that there is another 'pro' package makes all of that very weird. This is something they need to clean up

TBH it seems messier to have both Gemini CLI and Antigravity

Mechanics that I found in the binary with a few agents, more information than I could glean from the GitHub page or the docs:

- A Chrome DevTools Protocol / Playwright client.

- macOS Seatbelt sandbox (--sandbox flag) with some special Node / v8 stuff.

- Sentry for crash reporting and Unleash for feature flags.

- A SKILL.md system mirroring Anthropic's skills convention.

- Subagents, an artifacts review workflow (slash commands), and conversation rewind.

- Telemetry redaction in several places (good?)

- go-git bundled in there.

- go-enry / linguist's entire language table: many file extension/syntax tags (Cairo, Stacks Clarity, Modelica, KiCad, etc.) bundled in there.

All in all, a 140 MB Go binary with its own browser control stack, sandbox, Git, language detector, skills runtime, and subagent system.

I'm good, I'll stick with pi and codex. Less is more my friends.

Adapting "if a product is free, you are the product":

If the agent won't tell you what it's programming is, it's not your agent.

Two fast reflections:

1. I personally really doubt you can stay competitive selling such low-agency products to agentic developers, who are used to having access to/ability to see & reform their agentic worlds.

2. Also impressed by the hubris of giving everyone a single month to make the transition! I'd love the Google Graveyard to keep track of how long between announcement and shut down products got; I expect Gemini CLI getting axed for Antigravity CLI with one month transition is close to a record.

> - A SKILL.md system mirroring Anthropic's skills convention.

> - Subagents, an artifacts review workflow (slash commands), and conversation rewind.

Antigravity CLI, like Gemini CLI, is a copy of most of Claude Code. At least in Antigravity CLI they copied the better UI as well. The scope of copying includes support for definitions of Agents, Skills, Commands, Plugins, MCP and so on. In fact, for some time, the Gemini CLI "extensions" documentation referred directly to Claude Code marketplace repositories. An artifact of this is that for example CLAUDE_PROJECT_DIR is made available to hooks, by Gemini CLI.

Looks like Antigravity cli is moving to weekly limits whereas Gemini cli was daily. Ouch

Good riddance. Gemini CLI was hot garbage.

So now there's 3 different Antigravity products: CLI, Antigravity 2, and Antigravity IDE. And Gemini CLI goes to the Google graveyard of products. Wow.

Crap! I was using this to manage my hledger files and it did a decent job.

Google foeling more like Hooli these days.

"need to install a complete desktop app to get access to our new CLI"

They nuked anti-gravity and installed their codex knockoff in place. The vs code fork IDE and all your settings with it have been removed. Reinstalling the anti-gravity IDE, as it's been renamed does not bring back any of your settings or extensions.

This is a cluster across the entire product line

Do people use antigravity? In my team, there is one guy but everyone else is on Claude code/GHCP

I was working on a product that relies on ACP (agent client protocol). Gemini CLI supports ACP natively although it is missing some protocols. But I found that Antigravity CLI (agy) lacks ACP support! It's a bad sign for me.

I stopped using Google products due to their propensity for killing them off. I continue to be proven correct in my assertion that they do not care about their customers.

100%. I really wish that I could treat them as a valid option, but they continuously reaffirm the position that it is dangerous to rely on them for anything commercial.

I feel a strange sense of relief that Google’s models are currently not industry leading and I don’t need to worry about not using them.

Sad. I liked Gemini CLI. I used it a lot and occasionally use it these days. I've never tried Antigravity though.

As much as I like Gemini CLI and don’t like them shutting it down, I think it’s good some of the offerings are getting unified. There was too much fragmentation in the google offering and this is making it a tiny bit better.

They used to have Antigravity and Gemini CLI.

Now they have Antigravity IDE, Antigravity 2, and Antigravity CLI.

You really like Gemini CLI? imo among all the model zoo provider, it's really the worse, and they didn't even update the models in it for days after each release, had to resort to weird hacks via MITM.

People use the Gemini CLI? What poor souls...

I use it for disposable tasks as it's included in my Pro plan and why not

Gemini CLI is so incomprehensibly bad. I can only hope dedicated focus on agy will be the difference maker. It'd be nice to actually be able to integrate Gemini models into my workflows because they offer genuinely unique approaches to problems that complement Claude/Codex really well.

I have been a happy user of Gemini CLI.

What makes it "incomprehensibly bad." in your opinion?

Lots of people throwing shade at Gemini CLI in the comments. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I enjoy using it. I haven't tried antigravity at all yet. I hope it will be an experience that is somewhat close to agentic coding on the CLI. I hit other model providers from Pi agent, but I'd like to be able to take advantage of my Google AI subscription on the CLI.

I'm in the same boat. I've been using the Gemini CLI since late last year - it's the only reason I moved up to Ultra.

I guess it's time to move to something else with a business model that might survive a reorg.

Update: unsubscribed from Google Ultra, moving to Claude Max

Weird, I saw nobody "throwing shade", all complaining is very direct and simple: gemini-cli sucks but Google sucks even more but discontinuing it to relaunch it with another name a tool that still sucks.

we never learn agy seems to be garbage

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...

Gemini CLI is too slow to use.

Anyway, one more @ Google Graveyard: https://killedbygoogle.com/

I haven't noticed the CLI itself being slow, but the Gemini model responses can be slow.

This is a double edged sword for me, I've dabbled with the Antigravity CLI and it is better but I got a lot of LLM use out of google's chaotic decentralized quotas.

gemini-cli had it's own quota, antigravity had it's own quota, and ai studio had it's own free tier quota and I managed to make use of all of them super cheaply.

Now they're finally unifying everything and cutting down, which is less of a cognitive load to keep track of quotas but also fewer benefits

I mean, idk why anyone is surprised. Was obvious goog was slow playing their harness

Anyone ever understand how the Gemini cli could be so bad even though Gemini 3 was so good?

Because the harness was bare bones. It takes a lot of under the surface work to make a really good harness to make a really good agent, independent of the LLM running.

The quality of the agent is 50% model quality and 50% harness quality.

Gemini CLI is a bare bones harness, whereas Claude Code and Antigravity are "batteries included" harnesses

sometimes I feel we need to hire someone just to catch up with google breaking changes.

As luck would have it, I tried Antigravity for the first time a few days ago.

It was a complete buggy mess - at one point I asked Gemini why it could not use the network despite having network access enabled in the sandbox settings, and it told me that although it had network access, it couldn't use mdnsresponder while running with the built-in sandbox. Like, how well thought out, network access without DNS.

After burning through about 80% of my 5-hour window of credits, I finally just went sandboxless to get the thing running. It hit the limit pretty quickly. I waited until the 5 hour limit was up, and found the 5 hour window had morphed into a one week window, still drained of credits.

I thought at least I can keep on using Gemini CLI until Google figures out this Antigravity thing. Oh well.

My experience with any built in sandboxing for these command line tools has been awful.

What I've done instead is built a script to create a disposable virtual machine (using incus to manage it).

And then I just run the CLI inside the virtual machine and delete the vm at the end of each day.

I built a pi extension. Pi repo has an example extension that uses anthropics sandbox which is a total buggy mess. (To be clear, that's anthropics sandbox itself, not the pi extension wrapper which is fine)

I dug into it a little bit to see about improving things there, but decided to write a minimal version that better suited my needs instead.

I'm curious why seemingly none of those projects tried using browsers JS/wasm execution as a sandbox instead

Same, this has been a challenge since my development machine also has access to banking/personal sensitive data. I would really like to run with `--dangerously-skip-permissions` (or equivalents) without too much worry.

Local VMs are heavyweight but useful if you are sandboxing an entire IDE/GUI app like Cursor. With containers it's somewhat annoying to share local files - Distrobox helps with GUI apps and mounting the home directory but loses sandboxing. I have been curious about Flatpak/bubblewrap, but haven't had time to try it.

For now I've settled on containers, but I would like to shift to a remote VM like I have at work.

They killed a gaming cloud this is just a CLI.

That is one reason I avoid Flutter at all costs despite other reasons.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me 305+1 [1] times, shame on me.

[1]: https://killedbygoogle.com/

How does anyone internally at Google justify these decisions?

Even if there are competing implementations, in terms of brand recognition, I feel like “Gemini” is more closely associated with Google than “Antigravity”. Why pick the more obscure option?!

Perhaps they felt the sentiment on Gemini CLI was beyond repair, but surely there must be some voice on the inside saying “developers will never adopt our products if we keep killing them”.

By unifying the billing and quota systems, as well as providing better integration, I presume

The Antigravity harness is by far better than the gemini-cli one. Antigravity also offers models other than Gemini as well. When you say Antigravity, you think of a platform whereas when you say Gemini you think of the model

It's great that gemini-cli is open-source, but that also comes with a bunch of ai-generated issues and pull-requests, which is sure to impede development

> Antigravity also offers models other than Gemini as well. When you say Antigravity, you think of a platform whereas when you say Gemini you think of the model.

I the other reasons you mentioned could be solved while keeping the Gemini name, but this is a fair point. I didn't realize they offered 3rd party models!

> When you say Antigravity, you think of a platform whereas when you say Gemini you think of the model

Yea I guess if their goal long-term is to be something more akin to Cursor that makes sense, but Anthropic seems to be doing just fine using "Claude" in their naming scheme.

> When you say Antigravity, you think of a platform

Absolutely not? When you say "Antigravity" then the first thing that comes to mind is "yet another IDE" and I have no desire in switching my IDE.

It's not an IDE, it's a way to run agents. In particular, the Antigravity CLI positioned as Gemini CLI's successor is a shell with superpowers, not something you would use for code development.

You proved the point. Gemini has been marketed better, such that even folks in the know confuse Antigravity (the IDE) with anything else attempting to be pushed.

Antigravity CLI was only announced yesterday, so pretty much no one realizes it's different from Antigravity IDE yet, but I agree with your overall point. This kind of branding is toxic for individual product awareness. I'm not sure what drives the thinking behind it; Microsoft does it too (Copilot, etc.).

Took me this long down the thread to understand it wasn’t an IDE. Terrible marketing and product strat

I don't think so? Gemini CLI (RIP) was more of a direct competitor to Claude Code - a CLI based coding agent. Antigravity was more IDE-like, based around a VS Code fork (so more like Cursor). Antigravity CLI, per the name, seems to be positioning it as a replacement for Gemini CLI, so certainly(?) a Claude Code CLI-based coding agent, but now one with multi-agent support and some sort of server-side harness as well apparently, doing who knows what.

Any CLI-based coding agent can equally well be described as "a shell with superpowers", and people were using Claude Code for non-coding tasks (e.g. sysadmin) before OpenClaw appeared and made that it's main purpose.

When you say Antigravity, I think of floating around on a space ship.

I think that's a lack of gravity. According to wikipedia antigravity is in fact impossible (under known laws of physics).

It's not lack of gravity - it's just that you and the space ship are both falling towards earth under the same gravitational acceleration, so your acceleration relative to the spaceship is zero. You don't need to be in space to experience this - in a "vomit comet" airplane used for training astronauts (and for photographing Kate Upton) you experience the same thing as the plane goes into freefall.

You would of course also experience the same thing if you were out in space far from any major gravitational attraction (almost "lack of gravity"), but obviously that's not the case with things like the ISS that we're used to seeing.

Maybe that's what the experience of using it is like ?

You failed the shibboleth. Real programmers think of xkcd.

OSS == "great... but... will impede development"?

Yes, since the former part relates to me as the individual (as I get the benefits of an open source project)

The latter is about the contributors that can no longer reap the benefits of OSS, since the amount of noise (e.g. low quality contributions, false-positives etc) leads to wasted time and effort to keep up with the flood

Were you to decide to one day file a genuine bug report or make a pull request, big chances that you will never get a response (1.5k issues, 329 pull requests open as of now). It's a Frankenstein('s monster) of a project from all perspectives, which is a shame, since I'm rather fond of the interface

"When you say Antigravity, you think of a platform..."

No, I don't.

I've never heard of Antigravity, but have (rarely) used Gemini, so there's that.

> It's great that gemini-cli is open-source, but that also comes with a bunch of ai-generated issues and pull-requests, which is sure to impede development

In a way, it is exciting to me that people exist that think like this. It is so different than how I think, we could be from different planets.

I don't ever say "Antigravity", because it's not worth getting invested into tool, that will be dead in two years, when "Google Harness" or whatever they will call it, will replace it

I disagree; gemini is their ai model brand, antigravity is their code harness.

Its much better branding than calling every single product "Co-Pilot (tm)".

Ah, so Gemini is the new Watson.

Gemini Inside (tm)

Yes it'd be like if Claude Code was actually called Opus

Except they have Flash & Pro labels too for another level of complexity

In those rare occasion when I want to use Gemini I just type gemini on my terminal.

Gemini was on life support on my side. I barely get to use it due to its subpar performance in coding, which is to be honest the only use I have of it.

And now I read that they spent 4 to 5 months testing 3.5 internally. Let that sink in. By the time they release the world has moved on. I don’t know who makes decisions at Google regarding AI but it saddens me to see this happening. Google should be up there leading but they are lagging against everybody.

How can I justify dropping 100$ per month, for a coding agent that is half a year behind, knowing that Codex or Kimi is going to do much better?

Stock might be ripping but that’s about it.

I get what you're saying about Gemini for coding and it's useful that you mention it.

I wonder though if Google isn't so worried about the viability of their coding AIs and have a longer term view than simply providing coding aids. This might also be indicated by their recent $40B investment in Anthropic, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/24/google-to-invest-up-to-40-bi...

...Only time will tell!

I think google has another 'problem': Gemini needs to do a lot more than claude.

They use Gemini for personal assistent to all of their Gmail and co users/customers. They have Google Docs, they have GCP were gemini should support you too.

They also have a lot more languages to support too.

They optimize Gemini for A LOT more than 'just' coding. So its probably a balance act for them. And because they are that rich and have no issues on compute and brain, they can play the long game easily.

If they push their tpu further and continue their build out, they will be able to start training high quality topic optimized models in parallel while everyone else needs the same amount to just train one main model.

What is preventing them from making a coding dedicated model if that's the issue?

Strategic vision.

The common sentiment is that you didn't really want to do that. You expect higher returns from only having a single base model.

On the other hand I quietly cheer every time they fumble even slightly, in their seemingly inexorable march to becoming our ultimate, terrifying, corporate overlords.

Yes. Every possible pain they have makes me happy when their other hand is slowly destroying Android. Let them suffer.

I would wager your feelings conflict with their analysis (which they are probably quite good at, with all that practice)

> I would wager your feelings conflict with their analysis

How their target audience feels isn’t separate from “analysis” - it’s the input.

As someone who worked there for a decade, I would wager instead that all that analysis at the top makes no difference when you're unable to execute because your internal politics are broken.

EDIT: ... also that the analysis at the "top" is mostly being made by people with the wrong incentives and motives, too.

> developers will never adopt our products if we keep killing them

We all want this to be the case but it's never the case. It never stops to amuse me how developers of the world fall into the Google trap again and again and again despite knowing better.

Personally have been hurt a lot by the abandonment of Polymer and since then it would not occur to me to touch any Google development product because what's the point really?

Internal political wrangling and competition along with poor top-level leadership explain these sorts of bumbling moves. The same story that has always been at Google.

I saw someone in a different thread describe Google product/tool strategy as a: “monkey knife fight”

And tbh I can’t really argue with that.

Reminds me of the Microsoft days circa 2010 when Microsoft published half a dozen media players (Zune!), word processors, email clients, etc.

I think this is a systemic problem of an industry where gross margin is 80% or higher, so you can plow all that extra money into superfluous headcount tasked with objectives of questionable business value. It’s a curse of riches, if you will. The rest of us living on 15 to 30% margins need to think a little harder about what we do and why.

> I think this is a systemic problem of an industry where gross margin is 80%

explain how GOOG's margin is 80%

what methodology do you use to derive that number?

just curious.

Wasn't it always somewhere between 20 to 30% (especially more recently in the 30s) but the real difference is, they're in the billions of dollars, your small business might be in the millions, it's quite a drastic difference altogether.

Its 36% for Q1 2026.

* https://i.imgur.com/3gDVMCk.png

The way I understood the 80% is that is the margin on the actual product. 36% is what remains after the “investments” in moonshot projects nobody asked for.

It's worse when you consider these are the only companies that can afford it due to the tax implications of R&D, my understanding was that you still pay the full bill on a developer building something as if you were making profits, even though you're burning their entire salary and other resources on it.

FWIW, what you will see at times in the HF world is a firm will want to get into a strategy and build competing teams. It lights a fire under both. It diversifies the risk. You can select winner and move some people over from loser. And if they both work, they both work.

It isn't a crazy idea if the opportunity is large enough to make the larger investment required worth it.

The problem I see in applying this to products is it can be very confusing for clients.

I have never understood basically any decision Google makes at any level. I think they're equivalent to a land owner sitting on top of oil. They have no idea what to do, and anything they do makes pennies compared to the oil, so it doesn't really matter what they do on top of that, customers be damned.

As if I needed another reason to hate them, they turned our Nest back to shitty thermostats last year by dropping older models from their Google Home service. There's no justification for it other than some product owner wanted to.

With a LOT of money, that's how.

This is the Google messaging problem all over again. Hangouts, Google Chat, Google Hangout Google whatever the fuck, messaging, GMail chat, Google Wave, Google Duo, Google MS Teams.

Now Meets Chat is Hangouts again!

Between this comment, and the comment above, I dont know what feels like fair criticism here.

Having a single perfect product strategy with non-overlapping product categories and understandable names is hard for any organization, particularly in a rapidly evolving space.

Its obviously an issue to have multiple mature products be chaotically names.

At this moment antigravity and gemini cli and are hardly mature. Isn't now the perfect time to consolidate?

Each consolidation is a reset. It's essentially a vote saying the brand recognition isn't strong enough, which implies a low confidence in the product

I still call it bard

just ... use ... opencode ...

#CLI

They products are pretty messy too. Veo, Gemini Omni Flash, Spark, Flow, Duo .... A lot of confusing and competing product lines.

It’s a good decision. If an IDE can do everything that a CLI does and it surely can, then I fail to see the point of a CLI. It’s not like an IDE can’t emulate everything a CLI does but better, faster, and more interactive. It’s not like one does not need to read code either. Besides, what about session management? What about configuring agents, especially for multi-agent orchestration? The list can go on. The point is, IDE or GUI in general gives us optionality. Then, what’s wrong with that?

One may argue that Google’s Antigravity is clunky or cluttered or something worse, but that’s confusing organizational capability with principles.

Well, there is no IDE in antigravity 2.0

Ouch! I assumed too early

Which makes this part quite funny

"One may argue that Google’s Antigravity is clunky or cluttered or something worse, but that’s confusing organizational capability with principles"

The amount of free and biased good will Google gets here in HN is weird.

I don't want to use a full AI IDE, I've been using Gemini CLI a lot and it works better for my workflows to bring my own IDE and use Gemini CLI alongside it. My assumption is others are having annoyances for the same reason.

Would be very difficult keeping it going knowing you will be laid off.

What's the big deal?

https://antigravity.google/product/antigravity-cli

They just revamped Gemini CLI. Plus it gets the harness of Antigravity, seems like a straight up upgrade to me?

From open source to closed source.

Classic google. Torch name recognition and goodwill associated with it for something new. http://antigravity.google/blog/introducing-google-antigravit...

here we go again: https://steve-yegge.medium.com/dear-google-cloud-your-deprec...

which is mainly this part on googles thinking:

> Drop whatever you are doing because it’s not important. What is important is OUR time. It’s costing us time and money to support our shit, and we’re tired of it, so we’re not going to support it anymore. So drop your fucking plans and go start digging through our shitty documentation, begging for scraps on forums, and oh by the way, our new shit is COMPLETELY different from the old shit, because well, we fucked that design up pretty bad, heh, but hey, that’s YOUR problem, not our problem.

AFAICT it's practically a name-change. Why can't they alias, does it for some reason have an API difference?

Unrelated, but does anyone know of a successful tech product name with five or more syllables? Antigravity CLI is a mouthful.

Which is why the CLI is agy, a marked improvement over gemini

Tried making an MCP server with Antigravity CLI. Antigravity CLI suffers from an identity crisis caused by a tool/ecosystem change: "I am unsure if I should be reading Gemini documentation, Gemini CLI documentation, Antigravity documentation or Antigravity CLI documentation". It couldn't really correctly answer how I should be registering the MCP server in its own system until I googled it.

Google Takeout doesn't work properly for exporting Gemini chats.

Antigravity locks your chats locally behind .pb files.

Nothing to export your very own data.

OpenAI is best at personal data export. Claude has something at least, despite being quirky. Yet, Google looks very purpose-built to not give anything back.

Gemini CLI was my late entry into AI-assisted work.

It was included in my employers workspace subscription so I tried it out last june, and that's how I finally understood the power of AI.

Then they announced that it was no longer included in our license and I bought my own Claude license instead, the employer went with another AI company.

So your loss Google.

> Gemini CLI is an open-source AI agent

This is not good for open-source. Claude is not open-source, copilot-cli is not and antigravity-cli isn't either.

Apparently the major players decide to keep the secret agent source, well, secret.

Because a lot of the value and development cost of an agent comes from the harness. So it makes sense to keep the harness code private, at least for now.

If/when everything stabilizes, we will probably see more open source. Agents are still very new and people are still figuring out the best way to make a harness

This is why most devs I know have stopped building anything serious on top of Googles AI tools. You cant build a workflow around something that gets renamed or killed every 6 months. Anthropic and OpenAI atleast understand that developer trust requires stability, Google still treats their AI devtools like consumer products. Ship it, rebrand it, kill it.

We still use multiple Google Ultra accounts because no choice for adversarial, but `gemini-3.1-pro-preview` is just offline so often, it's confusing how it's even possible, as in I'd say it's probably 80% uptime all-in, it's really a catastrophe overall, especially that Google was kinda known to be "always up".

Google and Azure are masters in shitshow when it comes to AI products. Create/rename/abandon at god speed, giving more reason to never use them for anything serious.

Well, I tried to give Antigravity a go.

First prompt thought for about 30 seconds, and after the fifth or sixth tool call:

"Our servers are experiencing high traffic right now, please try again in a minute."

Sigh...

That sucks I guess I won’t be using any Google llms anymore

>This account isn't eligible for Google Antigravity

And clicking on "Explore Google AI plans" takes me to...I kid you not...the storage settings page of google drive.

Genuinely can't tell wtf google even wants me to use. Vertex? Gemini? Antigravity? Antigravity 2? Agent platform? Google One? Gemini Enterprise? Google AI?

Don't they have a senior management team that can impose some coordination?

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/10bmv5v/a_docum... :)

Sounds like they vibe coded that instead.

Google has such poor UX flows at times, it doesn’t surprise me.

Google's UX was terrible long before LLMs, as any Google Cloud user can attest to.

I wonder what the hell the problem with naming things is in the AI space. They pretty much all suck at it.

OpenAI came up with GPT 4o, o4, 4.5, 4.1 (which came out later than 4.5 and had a completely different purpose), Microsoft just calls everything a copilot (Github Copilot, Azure Copilot, Microsoft Copilot - all from the same company, completely different things), and Google apparently just picks random words from the comments.

> Don't they have a senior management team that can impose some coordination?

They do have a senior management team, as can be ascertained by the size of their compensation package.

For the other part, which is actually doing actual management: nope.

I had been using Antigravity for about 4 months now. I used Gemini Pro 3.1 heavily for small to medium size projects, alongside I used AWS Kiro and Claude Code. Then I use Angtigravity but instead of Gemini I installed Claude code extention which was working great till Today with the new update, Antigravity removed all the vscode extentions. Not sure even how git will work here. This antigravity update isn't an update but a completely new product. All the investments we have made in order set it down with our dev process, integration is gone, wasted. This is a very bad move but actually its the permanent state of Google, launch a product and a bunch of similar kind of products and then pull the rug.

With the current state of the AI companies and models, one should stay as far away as possible from vendor lock in. Use open and agnostic harnesses and processes.

Not really using this product, but every time things like this happens, my trust in Google just goes further down even if I thought it wasn't possible. I don't get how companies even dare to rely on anything made by Google.

Iflow and Qwen cli are gone too. They probably think the clis don't make much sense without pairing them with free use and free use has become very expensive.

Wow, this is rough. Gemini Cli was already losing and it’s now being replaced by something they’re saying doesn’t yet have feature parity. Doesn’t seem likely to inspire defections from competitors.

One could argue coding is only a use case and that their models are still killing it overall. However agents are strategic across the board and coding agents are at the forefront. They’ve already lead to new products like CoWork and it’s easy to understand why Google should be doing everything possible to catch up.

Surprised they’re not trying to entice developers away with more heavily subsidized subscription plans. Maybe it’s because as some say those days are ending and soon we’ll all be paying per token. Or maybe it would just put too much of a strain on available compute.

I am glad I learned my lesson and stopped relying on Google.

everytime google creates a project i pessimistically say i wont use it because it will be dead soon...i always get some downvotes by fanatics...and in the end its always true

For enterprise customers

If your organization uses Gemini CLI or our IDE extensions via a Gemini Code Assist Standard or Enterprise license, or if your organization uses Gemini Code Assist for GitHub through Google Cloud, your access remains unchanged. We’ll continue to support Gemini CLI and Gemini Code Assist with access to the latest Gemini models and other updates.

Oh, at least they didn't drop off Enterprise users. I think the general transition is towards building specialized products on top of agents. A lot of people are using claude code, codex, and other subsidized coding agents for non coding purposes as well.

Writing was on the wall. That horse has bolted and Google was not on it

Google is the new Microsoft. Gemini is its Zune.

just at the same time i was trying out their competition... i guess that's a sign

Agy cli is a giant pile of turd, at the moment, compared to the gemini cli. Though much much faster using the 3.5 flash, which is quite good, ridiculously fast and seems capable, but it has a 1 week expiry after you exhausted your very tiny pool of tokens. Sigh.

Migration is half assed, lots of extensions and mcps doesnt work Themes are fucked up (why not just copy everything over from geminicli?) agy cli doesn't know about itself and can't comment on basic things about its config ...

Earlier this month I switched from Claude Code to Codex and wanted to try Gemini CLI as well. It felt far behind both CC and Codex but I wanted to give it another chance with the new Antigravity CLI. What can I say, it did surprise me and not in a good way in but two short sessions that included just two prompts (trying to reverse engineer some earbuds OTA firmware) using Gemini Flash 3.5, I managed to finish my weekly quota. I'm currently on the Google AI Pro subscription. Couldn't even figure out my tokens usage or if my plan is even counted toward usage inside Antigravity CLI.

Who the heck makes these decisions? What’s the logic? Surely some folks here know.

All the engineers get fired but somehow the managers that constantly destroy brand trust just hang around like cockroaches