Re:Google I/O
by DannyBee on Tuesday May 19, 2026 @02:30PM
(#48197301)
You have to realize why something like antigravity exists.
There are two usual ways it occurs:
1. Political fights internal to the company resulting in incoherent strategy and products. HN assumes this is almost always the case, and but it's only sometimes the case :).
or
2. A bunch of execs sitting in a room saying stuff like "we have to have a platform with eyeballs that we control where we can surface our AI innovations and tools or else we'll be disintermediated/unable to release stuff that matters" or whatever.
(or both!)
The second part is often a real problem to solve. The first (you have to have a platform) does not follow.
At least two of the main issues with solving these kinds of problems this way (ie antigravity) is:
a. No user actually cares about your strategic problems and isn't interested in helping you. What you release still has to be valuable/etc enough that people are willing to use it over their existing tooling. At least right now, antigravity really isn't.
b. The strategy seems to assume a complete vacuum where it's Google vs existing tools. However, there are tons of large developer companies with the same exact problem of wanting a place they control to surface stuff (or whatever particular problem this is meant to solve). If they opt for the same approach, why would Google's strategy beat them? . If they opt for a different approach, same question.
If you poke there, i suspect you will find nobody has good answers to these questions.
So this approach turns into, at best, skating to where the puck is instead of where it will be.
There are two usual ways it occurs:
1. Political fights internal to the company resulting in incoherent strategy and products. HN assumes this is almost always the case, and but it's only sometimes the case :).
or
2. A bunch of execs sitting in a room saying stuff like "we have to have a platform with eyeballs that we control where we can surface our AI innovations and tools or else we'll be disintermediated/unable to release stuff that matters" or whatever.
(or both!)
The second part is often a real problem to solve. The first (you have to have a platform) does not follow.
At least two of the main issues with solving these kinds of problems this way (ie antigravity) is:
a. No user actually cares about your strategic problems and isn't interested in helping you. What you release still has to be valuable/etc enough that people are willing to use it over their existing tooling. At least right now, antigravity really isn't.
b. The strategy seems to assume a complete vacuum where it's Google vs existing tools. However, there are tons of large developer companies with the same exact problem of wanting a place they control to surface stuff (or whatever particular problem this is meant to solve). If they opt for the same approach, why would Google's strategy beat them? . If they opt for a different approach, same question.
If you poke there, i suspect you will find nobody has good answers to these questions.
So this approach turns into, at best, skating to where the puck is instead of where it will be.