[UncleMeat]

Google is somehow truly awful at this. I thought it was funny when branding messes happened in 2017. I cried when they announced "Google Meet (original)." Now I don't even know what to do.

I'm stunned that Google hasn't appointed some "name veto person" that can just say "no, you aren't allowed to have three different things called 'Gemini Advanced', 'Gemini Pro', and 'Gemini Ultra.'" Like surely it just takes Sundar saying "this is the stupidest fucking thing I've ever seen" to some SVP to fix this.

[meowface]

And somehow the more advanced one is still on 1.0 (for now) and the less advanced one is on 1.5.

[kccqzy]

That's like saying it doesn't make sense for Apple to release M3 Pro without simultaneously releasing M3 Ultra.

[meowface]

That's very different.

[kccqzy]

The only thing that's different is the standard people apply to different companies due to their biases. There are more Apple fanboys on HN than Google fans (Of course, since Google's reputation has been going down for quite a while). Therefore Apple gets a pass. Classic double standard.

[wrasee]

It’s different because Apple didn’t release the M1 Ultra at the same time as the M2 Pro. That would be confusing to buyers because it wouldn’t be immediately obvious which one is the better purchase, both being new offerings presented to customers at the same time.

It’s understandable that later generations are better and higher tiers are also better, but usually there is some period of time in between generations to help differentiate them. Here we have Google advancing capability on two axes at the same time.

I give them a pass as this field is advancing rapidly. So good for them. But I think it’s a legitimate call that it adds complexity to their branding. It is different.