I’m a multimedia creative (artist, composer, programmer, aspiring game dev) that uses Gemini on a semi-regular basis.
I don’t typically use the high-end features like image gen, but I value being able to get code review, small code apps, and even some light “what if” style crossover roleplay exploration in, with the occasional concept image gen. The new limits system is fundamentally antithetical to maintaining my workflow on Gemini and it is causing me to seriously reconsider my use of the app.
I don’t want to have to tear away from such a useful tool, but I wanted to state that I may have to if Google continues to throttle user availability in this way. The economy is not in a state where people can reliably just throw money to increase their limits for a tool which they may (or may not) have come to rely upon. Now that Flash is itself being throttled, I am becoming increasingly frustrated and am beginning to doubt Google’s own reliability as a vendor. I voice this as a relatively loyal user in hopes Google developers will listen and roll back this change. If not, I am sure I am not the only voice with these frustrations, and I expect it will begin to affect Gemini’s bottom line adversely. From a sheer business standpoint, this is a bad move.
I completely relate to everything you said. I’m a Google One subscriber and I’ve been dealing with the exact same frustration since May 17th, when these changes were rolled out without any meaningful prior communication.
What bothers me most isn’t just the throttling itself — it’s the way it was done. Unilaterally, silently, and with no real acknowledgment of how it disrupts the workflows of people who actually pay for the service. I actually took the time to email Google’s support about it. The response I got was, in essence: “we understand your frustration, but this is how our process works and we cannot change it at this time.” They then proceeded to instruct me on how to submit feedback through Gmail — a completely different product — as if that were a satisfying resolution.
Your point about the economy is spot on. Not everyone can or should have to pay more just to maintain the same level of access they already had. And the timing couldn’t be worse: Google just finished making a series of exciting AI announcements, full of promises about what’s coming — and simultaneously made the current experience significantly worse.
It’s hard to feel enthusiastic about a company’s future when they’re actively degrading the present.
You’re right that you’re not alone. This sentiment is spreading fast across forums and communities, and if Google doesn’t course correct, it will absolutely affect Gemini’s user base and bottom line.
And then of course, as you said, they advised you to submit feedback through Gmail. It sounds like they are fully aware they’re upsetting users and are trying to herd us through a gamut that they can easily brush off. That’s why I thought to take the issue to the developers (even Gemini recommended it, in a stroke of ultimate irony) on the forum, because I’m sure they do not feel the same as corporate does on the matter. Either way, jobs are on the line, because if Gemini starts bleeding users it’s going to cause layoffs. I don’t want that, the developers don’t want that, and corporate seems not to care, same as what has happened with YouTube and similar.
This seems to be part of a larger trend of Google cutting off its nose to spite its face. Someone needs to draw the line somewhere. I won’t shy away from expressing my frustrations as I already have, but I’m not going to be completely belligerent about it. I have genuine concerns about this policy and how it reflects on Google’s stance towards its other services, especially as I am paying into other Google services. As an active consumer, this makes me reconsider that move, especially as compounded upon the fact I cannot support my existing expenditures at this time.
I should note additionally that Gemini, when asked, has responded with technical objections to this policy, agreeing simply that on an objective basis, these changes actively hinder its ability to do its proclaimed job. The fact that Google’s own assistive tool is speaking against it on this issue should be telling.
This is a unique case where the tools in question can, even in a limited sense, speak on their own behalf. If Google is truly serious about the “AI is the future” mindset then they cannot afford to ignore that their own AI is willing to say that they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too.