And once they've got their monopoly position there is inevitably the rug-pull. I wonder if some CPO somewhere actually had the guts to put a 'rug pull' item on the product roadmap.
Even traditional businesses do this with coupons. Is it unfair that Costco sells chickens for under cost because it drives usage to them?
Companies like Uber did use massive funding and price subsidization to try and kill competition and then take a monopoly, but it is hard to assert that this is what google is doing now. And given that other competitors in the space, Anthropic are doing the exact same thing again its not as though they are alone.
Also they could be subsidizing it because they want that usage type as it helps them train models better.
Chatgpt and gpt4 were all ran at a loss and subsidized people just didn't know that. Almost all of the llm companies have been selling 1 dollar of llm compute for 50 cents as they valued the usage, training data, and users more than making profit now.
This next generation of MOE and other newly trained models. Like opus 4.6, Cursor Composer 1.5, gpt 5.3 codex, and many of the others have been the first models where these companies are actually profitably serving the tokens at the api cost.
This year has been the switch where ai companies are actually thinking of becoming profitable instead of just focusing on research and development.
But Google are banning entire accounts, with years, even decades, of personal history, photos, even phone accounts and app development projects.
They very easily could just negate the anti-gravity access, which would be much, much more reasonable.
Source? It seems to me only the anti-gravity access was blocked. The link says
> Our product engineering team has confirmed that your account was suspended from using our Antigravity service.
> there’s no way we can restore our accounts to use Antigravity anymore yeah?
Disclosure: I work at Google, but not on anything related to this.
Not. On both counts.
Offering a different discounted rate for a service, though their first-party platform is not an unfair business practice whatsoever, though. The bar isn't what you disagree with, or what you think their motives are without any substantial proof. They could even make a honest argument that they can aggressively key-value cache default prompts from their own software reducing inference costs.
>See also: Microsoft and a whole bunch of other companies.
What does that have to do with Google?
Although in this case it's probably impossible to define, given the complexity of calculating the true cost of tokens.
No.
Dumping is an international-trade term. It doesn’t even require pricing below cost, just aiming “to increase market share in a foreign market by driving out competition and thereby create a monopoly situation where the exporter will be able to unilaterally dictate price and quality of the product” [1].
Loss leaders are common in commerce and entirely legal, as are free trials. I struggle to think of a competent jurisdiction that bans them.
Second, that’s not what dumping means. It’s a specific term for international trade.
Third, it’s not illegal to sell something for below the cost to make it. That’s another common misunderstanding.
Of course, Google is still in the wrong here for instantly nuking the account instead of just billing them for API usage instead (largely because an autoban or whatever easier, I'm sure).
I am afraid of using any Google services in experimental way from the fear that my whole Google existence will be banned.
I think blocking access temporarily with a warning would be much more suitable. Unblocking could be even conditioned on a request to pay for the abused tokens
Claude code could possibly make profit because the average usage doesn't come close to exhausting the limits.
Should Netflix for instance not invested money from renting DVDs to invest in a streaming service?
Apple not use the profits it was making from selling Apple //e’s to create the Mac?
If it makes it impossible to set up a competitor? Absolutely, yes.
> Should Netflix for instance not invested money from renting DVDs to invest in a streaming service?
Netflix was not priced below the cost of production from the beginning. You're confusing sustainable pricing and paying off all the capital spending immediately at launch.
A better example is Doordash when it was heavily subsidized by VC money: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23216852 And it now faces several anti-trust lawsuits.
Not sure that this case is either. This is just idiots breaking the TOS.
