Gemini Omni 1.2 Flash

Posted by thisisauserid 3 hours ago

Comments

Comment by wxce 2 hours ago

It's insane how Google has dropped the ball almost completely with AI.

I literally don't care about their models anymore because I can't even try them without paying for them?

I already pay for the plus plan but whatever their latest model was, is locked for me. Or otherwise it's just not accessible for me.

If I try to add balance to my Google payment account, it shows me errors and is asking me to verify my identity through government documents.

---

Not to mention the extremely confusing terminology. "Flash", "Experimental". Why are most of your models either of those two? I don't get the confidence that your models are any good because of such names. Give me a normal reliable model!

Even if Google releases AGI tier models in the future, I'll always look for other models because Google clearly thinks their models are too good for any of us.

Comment by ttul 2 hours ago

AI Studio is legitimately the worst UX experience on the internet. For a company with unlimited cash and the ability to hire the best talent, I just don’t get it. Give nearly anyone else a few hours alone with that codebase and Opus-5.5 and it will be looking 1,000x better.

Comment by swores 1 hour ago

> "AI Studio is legitimately the worst UX experience on the internet."

I find it hard to believe there aren't worse ones out there. But off the top of my head I actually can't think of any...

Quite incredible that you can say a sentence like that, while talking about something within Google(/Alphabet) that's actually an important area for them (not just some random little side project), and yet it isn't hyperbolic, it's sincere!

Everyone there overseeing it (from direct management all the way up to C-suite) should truly feel embarrassed.

Comment by throwup238 6 minutes ago

The average SAP internal app is probably worse.

Off the top of my head: workaday

Comment by kristofferc 1 hour ago

I wanted to pay them money to try their things. I just literally couldn't figure out how to do it. I think I then managed to get some trial credits but I never managed to activate anything with them and hit API limit after basically one prompt.

Comment by btown 1 hour ago

Our team figured out the only stable way to do this was to either use OpenRouter for API, or for subscriptions, to get Ultra Gemini accounts on personal Gmail accounts (no way to do this for individual members of an org without upgrading the entire org!) and hook those to the Antigravity CLI which Claude Code can then orchestrate for second opinions.

Which are amazing! Argon’s insights on code review and copywriting are phenomenal, and make these hoops well worth it! But geez, it’s horrifying that we had to figure this out!

Comment by theturtletalks 13 minutes ago

Are you sure about Argon? My experience has been it seems to understand code but it completely destroyed a couple of projects I was working on. Others like Theo used it to work on T3 Code and said it benchmaxxed and was atrocious.

Comment by tempest_ 1 hour ago

A year ago I was trying their enterprise code offering and for the life of me I could not get it let me use a gemini 3+ model. I enabled everything in like 5 different interfaces and the GeminiCLI and UIs would only show me 2.5.

Eventually I gave up. Anthropic/OpenAI took < 10 minutes to get things going.

Comment by swaptr 58 minutes ago

I paid for their AI models on the app because I wanted to try the Gemini experience on my device but its utterly incohesive, I just cant use my subscription anywhere else. Anthropic is close but at least they started offering API credits recently so my workflows dont break, but with google man.... its a horrible experience. Won't renew, thats for sure.

Comment by totetsu 1 hour ago

Me too! I wanted to just make an api call to get my current spend on google models.. and like 50 steps of creating this and that and linking it to here and then giving it this and that permissions, and being told this isn't acruall real time, you've just set up a query to be run against your data into this new data lake, and come back and check tomorrow.. I still couldn't get anything to work..

Comment by inquirerGeneral 56 minutes ago

[dead]

Comment by 80fj0348i 16 minutes ago

> the ability to hire the best talent

Is this true anymore? I feel like a lot of the best talent have better opportunities elsewhere where they won't get bogged down by entrenched bureaucracy. Not to mention the Google interview process and physical locations filter out a lot of talented people from even wanting to apply.

Comment by dilap 16 minutes ago

Yeah Tibo has a tweet where he talks about how he tried to do stuff at Google and they just wouldn't let him. Doesn't matter how much $ and talent you have if you are actively sandbagging them (and of course, for truly great stuff, you want the whole org from the very top driving you on, a la Musk or Jobs).

https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2083596911060324570?a=iif1W7...

Comment by rwillmann 18 minutes ago

> AI Studio is legitimately the worst UX experience

Their backend looks very confused too. I consume their models through OpenRouter and requests are processed randomly by AI Studio or Vertex. API key management had several entry points for a while too, with the option to query the same model with a GCP, Firebase and/or AI Studio API key.

Comment by brightball 54 minutes ago

Agreed.

When I signed a few devs at work up for Gemini for Code I had to go into Google Cloud, jump through several different screens, assign special permissions to each dev to make it work and even when it did work...it was insanely confusing compared to every other option out there.

It's to the point where I'm better off asking Grok Bot set it up for me rather than ever deal with figuring it out again.

Comment by mrieck 1 hour ago

They're banned from using Opus-5.5 or other competitor models so they can't fix it.

Comment by lunarboy 16 minutes ago

Opus 5.5 and Fable 5.1 are available now

Comment by tempest_ 1 hour ago

If you have ever worked for a large company you can quickly imagine why they cant execute. Google is old now and entrenched. We will see how long it takes them to become IBM/GE etc. (if they are not already headed that direction).

Do they still have 5 messaging apps or did they finally trim it down.

Comment by inquirerGeneral 55 minutes ago

[dead]

Comment by muzani 1 hour ago

Ironically, Gemini is excellent with UI/UX, and somehow they can't use it to improve themselves.

Comment by zarmin 1 hour ago

>For a company with unlimited cash and the ability to hire the best talent

Right. They lack no resources. Therefore, what is happening must be what they want to happen.

Comment by techmunky 20 minutes ago

I've worked in some pretty big global orgs. Everything was decided by committee which meant that everything had to work for everybody, which meant that everything was shit. I spent some of the best years of my life building and rebuilding the same bullshit. I think I shipped a handful of truly novel experiences in that time (probably about one novel feature every 2 years) but the rest was beating a dead horse to make the experiences we already had "better."

Eng was neutered at that large org. Product people had the "vision" and the say. A lot of product people just used our team's product as a stepping stone onto their next role and in the end it showed. I would hope Google has a better culture...but theres a good chance it doesn't.

Comment by Imustaskforhelp 1 hour ago

Google has an near monopoly on Internet ads (or rather a duo-poly combined with Facebook). Having such an monopoly makes them have hindsights on what they are doing and how they are failing, or even if they do, the incentives and management just aren't cleanly aligned with what ought to be the case.

Comment by adventured 1 hour ago

Google has always been a bunker corporation, they exist only on shielded campuses and never interface with normal people or reality. One of the additional consequences of never concerning themselves with providing customer service for most of their products. They have no idea what's actually going on on the ground, until long after it has shaken the world (ChatGPT). They're deeply isolated from the front and from proper feedback iteration mechanisms.

Comment by sumtechguy 44 minutes ago

wow that is a really good way to describe it.

Comment by jorl17 2 hours ago

There have been months where we've paid 1500€ for my AI models, but I can't bother with Google's models because I literally don't know how to get them. Every time I look it up it looks incredibly cumbersome and confusing. It's not clear which models I get, if I can get them on my personal accounts or need the work account. It's just too confusing.

I am a Google Workspace customer by the way (have multiple accounts, actually!).

Google must really not care about me as a customer, and instead only care about the enterprise.

Comment by e12e 1 hour ago

I'm quite happy using antigravity fwiw. I use Claude code for work. Only tried agy because I was already paying for Google one (youtube music, youtube without ads/premium and a few TB of storage).

Antigravity come with Google's models and anthropic - so Gemini 4 Argon, Gemini 3.8 Flash, Claude Opus 5.5 Claude Sonnet 5.5 and GPT-OSS 120B.

Agy is better than Claude code in some ways and vice versa.

Google models are great.

Ironically google music is so terrible I've uninstalled it and use Metrolist exclusively.

I think google models do a decent job helping me put together a blog, for example:

https://hypertekst.net

(Content is typical 90s homepage stuff, not great. But model voice isn't as grating as Claude - and while it has a "look" I think it's s bit better).

Comment by jorl17 1 hour ago

In the past, whenever benchmarks used to show google as being on par with the rest, I tried them and found them extremely lacking.

It's been maybe 6 months since I last tried them in any proper fashion (other than my usual benchmark which is non-coding related), but I was so let down previously, and found it so exhausting to just figure out how to get a subscription working with them, that I really feel like I've given up.

I'm sure I'll get around to trying them. Heck, it could happen today if the mood hits, but....it does need a specific mood. The mood to get over bullshit UX and a profound disdain for the company.

Comment by e12e 59 minutes ago

Fwiw the homepage serves as a current demo - for better or worse. Practically vibe coded (I haven't really looked at the code), but not one-shotted.

YMMV

Comment by vohk 33 minutes ago

I've not been impressed with their models. Argon seems good but the usage limits on Pro feel worse than Sol/Astra/Opus on competing plans. But where Luna and Haiku have gotten to point of being 'good enough' for grunt work, I don't feel like 3.8 Flash is there.

That view somewhat biased by Flash getting stuck looping in Antigravity's CLI when I asked if it could add plan usage % to the status line. Instead of "no", it first pretended agy was Claude Code and gave me a wrong answer, then resorted to trying to analyse the binary.

Their harness situation is just awful.

Comment by ParanoidShroom 12 minutes ago

I paid and tried it today and the imagen tool just returns a 500, not sure if a fluke but not a great start

Comment by sebzim4500 2 hours ago

The only sane way is to do it through openrouter. I spent hours trying to figure out how to use one of their two competing APIs that expose the models natively, it ended up being a waste of time.

Comment by jorl17 1 hour ago

Yes, I do that to do quick tests of the model, but I am looking for the subsidized monthly subscription, which everyone else has. I won't use it otherwise.

Comment by WarmWash 1 hour ago

For unknown reasons workspace accounts get ridiculously slow roll outs of new models.

The only way to get the latest models with decent limits on a subsidized plan is to pay the full cost (monthly or yearly) for the pro plan or higher on a personal account.

Promo "pro" accounts and discounted "pro" accounts get much worse limits and model selection.

Comment by vohk 30 minutes ago

If that last is accurate, that seems like a terrible choice. I signed up for a 3 month discounted Pro trial to see if Gemini was worth trying against Claude and ChatGPT, then ran into an hour long lockout after my first serious prompt to Argon. Not a great first impression.

Comment by Barbing 1 hour ago

> get them on my personal accounts

Would want assurances they won’t permaban a Gmail for a false positive for something on their LLM offering. Like the risk with Google Photos (thinking about the dad sending a doctor a photo of his son’s rash).

Comment by esseph 1 hour ago

It's right here: https://gemini.google/subscriptions/

Have used them both for work with google workspace accts, and personally, with antigravity in linux.

Comment by browningstreet 44 minutes ago

Thanks, I didn't know about this page, and I'm a Google Workspaces subscriber.

By all rights, people should be debating among Codex, Claude, and Gemini plans. They obv don't care about that mindshare but they're a big enough organization that they could carve off a marketing and dev outreach team.

On X the only Google person I follow is Richard Seroter, and he hypes Antigravity sometimes, but not the plans you need for it. No one ever talks about it.

They should be the 3rd or 4th, certainly jockeying for position with Grok/Cursor. I would never sign up for an Elon AI plan under any circumstances, and there's enough distaste for Anthropic and OpenAI to fuel a few DCs, and Google isn't even playing.

Comment by jorl17 1 hour ago

Love that they have "Personal", "Business" and ... "Developer"

Perfect Venn Diagram.

Thanks for the links. I'm pretty sure last time I tried this I got mysterious errors and a couple of redirect loops. Maybe this time will be the one that works.

Comment by shooker435 2 hours ago

It's confusing for enterprises, too. Believe it or not, the cloud sales team recommends hiring partners to set up basic auth and "landing zones" for the APIs.

Comment by WarmWash 1 hour ago

Flash-lite haiku luna

Flash sonnet tera

Pro Opus Sol

Argon Fable Astra

These are the (approximately) equivalent model classes between the labs

Experimental means not production, so liable to change in the near future if you decide to build on it.

Omni is a video editing model, and flash implies it's a lighter weight one than what they have/could have. The other labs don't have competing models here.

Comment by andai 1 hour ago

What's Carbon then? I haven't been paying much attention to Google but their naming has been confusing me.

Luna/Terra/Sol/Astra was a bit pretentious but at least the sizing makes sense. (I imagined the meeting... "Ok guys, we're getting mogged on naming... what's more epic than a Myth?" -"The SUN!")

Anthropic makes sense with the literary "scale" naming, mostly.

Is a Carbon bigger than an Argon though? Maybe it has to do with the atomic number?

Comment by WarmWash 1 hour ago

Carbon is the next iteration (via RL training) of the Argon sized model.

Comment by conception 56 minutes ago

A B (not released) C

Comment by lukeschlather 1 hour ago

Carbon is to Argon as Mythos is to Fable.

Comment by knollimar 41 minutes ago

I thought carbon was smarter?

Comment by lukeschlather 23 minutes ago

Yes, Carbon and Mythos are the secret super-smart models you can't use without an invitation and a million dollars.

Comment by hirako2000 57 minutes ago

Carbon is to Aragon what Fable is to Mythos.

Comment by baq 1 hour ago

Argon is not same tier as Astra and Fable. the upcoming, similarly unavailable Carbon maybe is.

Comment by WarmWash 1 hour ago

This would be by (suspected) parameter size, not benchmarked ability.

It's possible Argon/Carbon are pro sized, but given the internal rumblings and that it is based on a fresh pretrain, it makes most sense for it to be a "big" model.

Google did at one point have an "Ultra" sized model, but nothing more came of it after 1.5 Ultra.

Comment by spyspy 1 hour ago

Argon is totally in those tiers in my experience. And you actually get to use it for a few days before you run out of tokens...

Comment by spyspy 1 hour ago

People really seem to struggle with this and I can't figure out why... Like it kind of just reads like astroturfing in every thread. I downloaded agy, purchased a subscription that the splash page said "includes Argon" and it... works?

3.8 flash and argon have been great FYI. Can't tell a difference between any of the claude models I use at work, minus actually being able to read what it writes.

Comment by david-gpu 1 hour ago

I can tell you that I have a Gemini plus subscription I still don't have anything more recent than 3.6 Flash. In consequence, I never use Gemini anymore, and instead have a PAYG plan on Deep Infra.

So, no, it is not astroturfing.

Comment by ParanoidShroom 14 minutes ago

I paid, ran antigravity cli, getting 500 on the image tool because the model the cli wants to use is not available? There are no other models to choose. Im so confused

Comment by dataflow 2 hours ago

> I literally don't care about their models anymore because I can't even try them without paying for them?

Where are you finding ways to try e.g. Opus without paying for it?

Comment by fooblaster 1 hour ago

well, search is free right? the hostility here is a little excessive

Comment by dataflow 24 minutes ago

The search model is not the same model, and it's quite obviously worse when you use it, so that's not quite a reason I would personally find the hostility excessive.

Comment by mushufasa 30 minutes ago

I agree and I'm guessing the reason is that Google's real incentive is using their own AI in search and their internal products. While they should care about other developers building on top of them (via Google Cloud), they have an even bigger customer which is their internal teams.

Comment by williamdclt 38 minutes ago

That, and gemini (app or web) has been bugging for months for me. I'd get "something wrong happened" every 3-4 queries, sometimes a few retries made it work, sometimes not. That this happens for a day is understandable, that this is unsolved after weeks or months is incomprehensible to me and literally forced me to a competitor (which I immediately found to be better anyway)

Comment by andai 1 hour ago

This sentiment is the top comment I'm seeing on every recent Google release. That it's impossible to actually access the tech, or even pay for it.

I heard someone say on the last such thread that you can use their models thru OpenRouter, and that this is much more pleasant than trying to use them thru Google directly. Looks like it's up there already:

https://openrouter.ai/google/gemini-omni-1.2-flash

Comment by jrmg 1 hour ago

Also Vercel:

https://vercel.com/ai-gateway/models/gemini-omni-1.2-flash

If you're using any sort of router middle-man new models are usually easy to try.

Comment by me551ah 37 minutes ago

I just use their models via openrouter. I have an account with OpenAI, Ollama , even deepseek platform. But for all google ai stuff, I just use openrouter.

Not only is it easy to pay but I also don’t risk getting my account banned.

Comment by 1 hour ago

Comment by bajard 1 hour ago

I can't use it. The webpage reloads continuously after logging in. It's probably some ad blocker add-on, but it's the only web AI that doesn't work, so I simply don't use it at all.

Comment by modeless 14 minutes ago

> I can't even try them without paying for them?

The real problem is you can't even try them with paying for them! It's been more than a week since their previous model was announced, "Gemini 4 Carbon", if there is such a thing. Even paying customers still can't use it!

Comment by justplay 25 minutes ago

On top of that, the inference is painfully slow. I’m now convinced Gemini is no better than ChatGPT or Claude. They haven’t even managed fast responses on the Flash model, and I’m paying for Pro. Gemini, you suck.

Comment by latentsea 45 minutes ago

> It's insane how Google has dropped the ball almost completely with AI.

Aside from winning the Nobel prize in chemistry.

Comment by TheAceOfHearts 1 hour ago

Alphabet is a company with too much money and resources, which means they don't end up trying very hard to acquire and retain customers for any of these products since it's just a blip in their overall revenue. It's time to split them up.

Comment by w0m 1 hour ago

I think the gap here is you're thinking that you are their customer.

Comment by david-gpu 1 hour ago

We literally paid them for a Gemini subscription. How does that not make us a customer?

Comment by Pxtl 1 hour ago

They may have dropped the ball on AI-for-programmers, but the Google slopbot is the one the normies use. As much as their AI summaries used to be the biggest joke in the industry, today they're the one I think normies who aren't "AI people" are using the most day-to-day. I see a lot of people doing it:

Search with Google, see the AI summary and the search results, realise they want more detailed info, and put that request for clarification into the AI reply and now they're off to the races on a Google AI conversation.

Now, it's questionable how "sticky" that is and latest financials revealed it was extremely unprofitable, but in terms of raw "who's using AI" it seems to be working for them.

Comment by dcrazy 1 hour ago

Bingo, this is exactly how I use AI personally. There’s just too much SEO spam to wade through on search results anymore, and Google’s AI Mode RAG is pretty good at citing trustworthy sources when I want to dive in.

DuckDuckGo’s equivalent feature is unfortunately too prone to hallucination, especially whatever cheap model they are using for AI summaries. Once you click in it switches to GPT Luna, which will sometimes hilariously correct the previous response.

Comment by sumtechguy 35 minutes ago

how i have been using it 'at home'. its ok conversationally. It honestly is a very 'mid' search engine. Sometimes it can zoom right onto what I want. Other times it gets very fixated on the 'wrong thing' and you have to club it into expanding its view. It just randomly gets 'lost' and you have to nudge it along to actually dig in. even then even if you explicitly tell it to review its sources it will just kinda ignore the request and keep going.

Comment by theplumber 1 hour ago

Google is a dying company. Abandon the ship! Everything they do in terms of AI is really worthless.

Comment by wesleywt 37 minutes ago

Gemini is completely integrated in my company's ecosystem. They don't care that you don't use it.

Comment by infecto 1 hour ago

It truly is. I acutallu signed up for an annual plan because I used the image models for design ideas on my house. Few weeks ago they announced changes, no more pro models. It’s laughable how much they keep screwing up.

Comment by stoicfungi 1 hour ago

[flagged]

Comment by Drunkfoowl 2 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by tantalor 1 hour ago

skill issue?

Comment by fuzzythrowaway2 6 minutes ago

Still can't handle the prompts I throw at it, though the 15 seconds gives more breathing room. Not being able to use first and last frames for the longer videos doesn't render it useless, but it gets pretty close (the model just cannot reproduce unusual or idiosyncratic character designs without first and last frames; fat, muscular, ugly, and non-human characters regress to tv commercial blandness).

I just don't know how video is going to make it, long-term. You have to go through so many iterations to get something with even a semblance of what you were going for. I've been making AI videos since early 2024, and while image quality and coherence has gotten better, the ability of the models to actually follow your directions precisely hasn't. I would rather have to wait 5-10 minutes for a clip that actually does what I tell it to than get something useless in 30 seconds.

Comment by msabalau 1 hour ago

This is a new video model. It is not a replacement for Gemini 4, it is doing something altogether different.

It has been available, since yesterday, within Google Flow. I know, because I used it yesterday. Creatives normally are using Flow or similar third party tools, not APIs or AI Studio. The claim here is that there is more character consistency, which is helpful if true. But that's not something I can see from a little work. Despite the "More Affordable" claim, it costs more, and the outputs doesn't, from my limited experience so far, seem to be significantly better. So I could only, personally, justify pulling this up when character consistency is punching me in the face. Which, to be fair, is a lot of the time, both in my experience, and the experience of other AI film makers I talk to.

This isn't for (most) coders, it hardly matters if it shows up on Flow a little earlier that Google Vids, and, perhaps, it is a little silly to act like it is a nightmare that a rollout occurs over a few days, especially the rollout prioritizes the paying creatives on the tool that are most likely to use.

Comment by kakugawa 18 minutes ago

It's double the cost in Flow, but 30% cheaper via the API. And Flow has always been much cheaper than the API (by 5-6x).

Comment by ricardobeat 33 minutes ago

The "omni" naming for a video-only model is so confusing. I was under the impression omni referred to models that can output text and audio too.

Comment by Willingham 2 hours ago

The rollout is so confusing. Going straight to the Gemini app and asking when I can use this model gets me vague and contradicting answers. Ultimately it sounds like the Vids rollout will take 1-3 days, and you can go to vids.new on desktop to see if you’ve won the lottery and have it available now, apparently on any free Google account. Business accounts can use it too. Meanwhile the Gemini app is getting it on paid plans, but with different video length limits and no clear rollout timeline. If you pay for the API, it’s available now apparently.

Why is this so difficult to figure out?

Comment by WarmWash 2 hours ago

https://flow.google.com/ is where most people would use the model. You get credits with your monthly sub that you can spend on flow.

Comment by CharlieDigital 1 hour ago

Never even heard of this until today.

I think they are doing a terrible job with their product packaging. Like others, I also gave up with Google models long ago due to difficulty in accessing and low limits.

My gut is that this is reflective of their fragmented internal product organization around AI.

Comment by WarmWash 1 hour ago

Google has been like this forever.

Excellent engineering and awful product.

Comment by tomrod 31 minutes ago

It's okay to say that Google's engineering is also poor. If they had good engineering, they'd study their users and lead to product improvements. It's really not either/or.

Comment by pjmlp 50 minutes ago

It has been a while, but I used to read AOSP source code quite regularly, and always wondered where do all those engineers that pass the famous Google interviews land, because they certainly weren't writing the Java and C++ code in Android, given how it looked like, or the whole mess with NDK headers, and other stuff in the tooling.

Ah, and the Eclipse/Android Studio stable releases, that usually have bugs as if they were still preview, release candidate ones.

Comment by CharlieDigital 46 minutes ago

What's clear to me: leetcode and quality code are not the same skillset.

Comment by iAMkenough 1 hour ago

Uhg that’s my issue. I keep getting it mixed up with https://wave.google.com/

Go with the Flow, don’t ride the Wave.

Comment by jcelerier 2 hours ago

I opened ai studio and i see it popping up, on a normal account: https://aistudio.google.com/prompts/new_chat?model=gemini-om...

Comment by jjulius 1 hour ago

>Going straight to the Gemini app and asking when I can use this model gets me vague and contradicting answers.

In other words, business as usual.

Comment by poilcn 2 hours ago

Somewhere in the middle of the video it would suddenly scroll one screen back, happens with all videos on the page, eh

Comment by hulkmusic 2 hours ago

When playback ends on one of the videos, the page jumps back to that video for some reason. I saw this too when I had multiple videos playing at once and the earlier clip on the page finished while watching another one lower on the page.

Comment by 4pkjai 2 hours ago

noticed that too

Comment by del82 1 hour ago

I desperately wish Google would focus on improving the Gemini capabilities that are built-in to their office suite (docs, slides, etc.). The current built-in Gemini is terrible, and if I could use e.g. Claude natively with those products my workday would be an order of magnitude more productive.

I'm shocked that they don't seem to be investing in agentic capabilities there at all.

Comment by FailMore 43 minutes ago

I built https://smalldocs.org / https://github.com/espressoplease/smalldocs basically for this. It lets any agent you want create rich documents - word, slides, spreadsheets, mermaid diagrams, rich code rendering, etc. About to launch a cloud first version of it, so what's on the site now will evolve soon.

Comment by armcat 2 hours ago

Completely random, but I was inspecting the source code for their Omni 1.2 Flash web page, and there are insane amount of newlines. There are seven newlines between the first line and the DOCTYPE. There are huge amount of newlines between each section. What did they use to generate this website?

Comment by citrin_ru 1 hour ago

Enterprise websites tend to have very complicated content generation systems with little care about performance (including html/css/js size). What's hypocritical is that Google penalizes in SERP sites which have poor performance score yet Google's own sites are far from exemplary.

Comment by origini 2 hours ago

Enterprise websites have often enough this issue.

they might have a composer layer which loads certain components (transparent to you) with and without authentication and mixing different backend sources.

Then they might have templating engines and frameworks.

Sometimes they just don't care but lets be honest: a few new lines are a few bytes.

But the most critical pages go through optimizers for traffic

Comment by amelius 1 hour ago

Perhaps they used:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitespace_(programming_langua...

Comment by amelius 1 hour ago

It's the watermarking of the AI they used :)

Comment by 2 hours ago

Comment by collabs 2 hours ago

A simple observation I have

> https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-uniblog-publish-prod/med...

Text from the first paragraph on the page says

> Today, we’re rolling out Gemini Omni 1.2 Flash, and making it generally available across the Gemini API and Gemini for business. Gemini Omni 1.2 Flash introduces native 15-second video creation, multi-turn conversational editing capabilities, and enhanced reference following. We have dropped the price 30% from Gemini Omni 1.1 making it available at $0.07 per second for 720p video.

Focus on this part

> We have dropped the price 30%

The text to speech audio says

> We have dropped the price 3%

Comment by liveoneggs 2 hours ago

They built a youtube-immolation machine - but to what end?

Comment by crustaceansoup 50 minutes ago

Parity with their admitted Search-immolation machine maybe

Comment by tabbiee 2 hours ago

Price is $1.50 in Input and $9.00/$12.00 (text/video) in Output per 1M tokens

Comment by cubefox 1 hour ago

$0.07 per second for 720p video.

Comment by srge 1 hour ago

Not going to even read this post. While I have been really bullish on Google I am now tired of them constantly baiting us with vaporware announcements unfortunately.

Comment by ilioscio 21 minutes ago

I pay and I still can't test it, how is Google this incompetent?

Comment by thisisauserid 1 hour ago

Not sure why this is so mysterious to everyone.

Google's main source of revenue is advertising (yes, still).

This is one of paths that serve that.

Still confused? Look at what Meta is doing with end-to-end ad creation.

I'm not saying Omni makes good ads. It's all part of the toolbox.

Comment by quibono 52 minutes ago

Okay, I just wanted to vent: I'm on the Pro plan and I've not been able to use Argon for the past 4 days - every time I send a prompt I get downgraded to a Flash model.

Makes me consider cancelling the plan entirely.

Comment by hangrybear666 1 hour ago

What's this name and versioning now, NOBODY understands Google's Ai products, including subscribers to them.

Why their models go from 3 to 4 but then whatever this is starts at 1 I honestly don't care anymore

My friend on Google ai plus is still stuck on gemini 3.6 flash and now they're taking away 3.1 pro from them too even though it's long obsolete, like zero regard for user interactions here

Comment by sumtechguy 30 minutes ago

honestly the naming on all of them from all companies is weird unless you 'know where to look'. I get having a cool code name for each one. But give me a clear way to look at it and see why should I use one model over another? like 'low/medium/high' something?! please!

Comment by geooff_ 1 hour ago

It's amazing to me how poor adoption has been for video models, at least in my corner of the internet. I see considerably more Code to Video content from libraries like HyperFrames than any native AI video. It seems that users are much more open to AI coded "Explained style" videos than anything else.

Comment by scottyah 13 minutes ago

It's still pretty inconsistent, slow, and expensive. I have claude write up massive prompts with reference images and it'll still come out poorly, but since I'm not generating much revenue with the product I use these models for, I just accept a lot of the sloppiness. I have tried a lot of different prompts, I think video just has a lot more free space to differ from our mental models than something like code that is a lot more well-defined.

Comment by thisisauserid 2 hours ago

Extending an exiting video by 15 seconds is pretty nuts.

Comment by dude250711 2 hours ago

That is sad... I tried to guess and ignore AI videos (created to be deliberately misleading as "realistic") by length, but I guess that time is over now.

Comment by treksis 22 minutes ago

please integrate it to antigravity cli

Comment by jonkrone 2 hours ago

Wait, I thought we were on Gemini 4?

Comment by pyjarrett 2 hours ago

It would be incredibly helpful to me if AI model names followed cars.

I'm not scratching my head about a "2025 Corolla." Windows 95 and 2000 had this built in, but then they lost it.

I'd prefer it was called Omni 2026.2 instead. It embeds a date and model and would package it as a product for on-premise or local hosting. It'd be easier to sell to the bean counters in the future: "We're running Omni 2026.2, we want to upgrade to Omni 2028."

Comment by forgotpwd16 38 minutes ago

They aren't far from cars. Cars have generations and each generation has distinct models, for market (region), body style, maybe generational steps with facelift, etc. So your "2005 Corolla" is Corolla Gen9 (2000-2007), designated E120/E130 (no idea how they differ), and can be 3-door/5-door hatchbacks, 4-door sedan, station wagon, varying which market you look at.

Comment by 2 hours ago

Comment by seunosewa 2 hours ago

Omni is a video model.

Comment by LtdJorge 2 hours ago

Which, from a naming standpoint, doesn't make any sense

Comment by rdtsc 2 hours ago

But it still starts with “Gemini”. It would be better if they called it Gemini Omni 4, 4.1 etc. Otherwise call it just Omni 1.2 and drop the Gemini prefix.

Comment by 1 hour ago

Comment by brookst 2 hours ago

It’s still bad versioning and will confuse people.

Comment by XCSme 1 hour ago

Is the previous Gemini 4 Carbon model live yet? I still don't see it on OpenRouter... but this one seems to be there

Comment by muddi900 59 minutes ago

It seems to me that LLMs are using simulation for cloth generations.

They move a lot like 3d models.

Comment by jshmrsn 52 minutes ago

It’s not the LLMs themselves, it’s the training data that they are trained on being supplemented by synthetic video from simulations / 3D rendering.

Comment by yipinwong 1 hour ago

Trying to "test" the model on OpenRouter, and keep failing with Gemini uptime being "68%".

What a great way to start.

Comment by bmiekre 2 hours ago

Why do we need this?

Comment by falcor84 1 hour ago

TFA is literally a marketing piece for why someone might want to use it. If you personally don't need it, that's ok, you're just not their target audience.

Comment by WhrRTheBaboons 1 hour ago

its pretty telling that the only compelling argument put forth by their own article is 'advertising'

Comment by rudolftheone 1 hour ago

Google, just go back to making products instead of throwing announcements.

Comment by syntaxing 1 hour ago

Hot take, Google should focus on their open weight models. I use Qwen 3.8 and it’s been amazing. I would pay for Max but there’s no provider or server here in the states. If they had an amazing Gemma 5, I would seriously consider trying their closed source models. Model comfort and familiarity is a real thing.

Comment by iruoy 2 hours ago

At least this one is available immediately.

Comment by mikelopez 2 hours ago

I don't trust Google on AI. They should do an spin off if they want to be relevant in AI.

Comment by amunozo 2 hours ago

DeepMind would be a good name for it!

Comment by hypfer 1 hour ago

If I understand correctly, the use-case for this is video B-roll? Because what else am I supposed to do with 15s of videos.

So, to badly impersonate N-Gate, "Business Model: Uber for Getty Images"

Comment by msabalau 1 hour ago

The average length of a shot in full length feature film today is like three seconds. Even back in the old days, the average shot was like 12 seconds. Most movies are made up sequences and scenes made up of lots and lots of shots.

Increasing the available range of shot lengths from 10 seconds to 15 seconds gives film makers a wider pallet of options, if the longer shots have continuity, which is the other claim here.

I'm not aware of any "one-shot", one and done, use cases that are much more compelling the clip is 15s vs 10s. But that's not relevant to many people actually using AI video models like this on a daily basis.

Comment by hypfer 1 hour ago

That's cool, but I don't see why one would want to watch a movie like that.

For B-Roll it's different. I can somewhat see the why behind that. It's just to give your brain something to look at so that you don't have a voice-only podcast.

But movies OTOH are these creative endeavors where the shots _are_ the content instead of just augmenting the content.

This won't stop the industry from still trying to use this tech like that, of course.

Comment by msabalau 55 minutes ago

Imagine a hybrid movie, where film maker spends $5000 filming a couple of actors, but uses $50 of AI shots for special effect or other footage that would have been completely out of budget before.

I mean, if you just want to claim that AI lacks soul, and its an abomination if every frame in film isn't make by a chemical process involving silver nitrate, like the good Lord intended, that's fine. But there are certainly film makers who don't share that sentiment.

Comment by hypfer 47 minutes ago

I can imagine that, but I don't think that this is the right AI tool for the job.

I would rather expect people to use AI to drive more conventional VFX tools, as that is reproducible, can be versioned, and, most importantly, will contain true intent in aspects.

Something this simply cannot do.

Comment by NitpickLawyer 2 hours ago

Waiting for someone to test it with "~~A pelican~~Will Smith eating pasta while riding a bicycle" or something...

Comment by spwa4 1 hour ago

Of all the uses of AI, producing convincing video is just about the worst one in my opinion.

Comment by sirmike_ 2 hours ago

it’s a shame that Google/Gemini decided to restrict and fuck other adventurous yet extremely gracious paying customers; who were excited at the prospect of not being locked in to two obnoxious companies.

oh well, I guess we’ll just have to take that enthusiasm and roll it over to all the open weights on providers like fireworks.ai. or others.

i’m so happy I got in early and paid for $200 a month for shit ass Opus 4.6 and sonnet 4.6 and being locked into the absolutely limited Gemini 3.8 flash.

Comment by azan_ 2 hours ago

> who were excited at the prospect of not being locked in to two obnoxious companies.