Hacker News Reader

Comment by phoe18 | Hacker News Reader

The branding is very confusing, shouldn't this be Gemini Pro 1.5 since the most capable model is called Ultra 1.0?

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.

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

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

That's very different.

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.

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.

This is something close to CPU versioning. You have two axis; performance branding and its generation. Nano, Pro and Ultra is something similar to i3, i5 and i7. The numbered versions 1.0, 1.5, ... can be mapped to 13th gen, 14th gen, ... so on. And people usually don't need to understand the generation part this unless they're enthusiasts.

No? Do you call it the iPhone Pro 15 or the iPhone 15 Pro? Their naming makes sense if you follow most consumer technology.

We will ask what its real name is as soon as it becomes sentient

Can anyone lay out the various models and their features or point to a resource?

I asked the free model (whatever that is) and it wasn't very helpful, alterating betweens a sales bot for Ultra and being somewhat confused itself.

Edit: apparently it goes 1.0 Pro, 1.0 Ultra, 1.5 Pro, 1.5 Ultra and so on.

Here's the models, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39304270 This is about Gemini Pro going from version 1.0 to 1.5, nothing else.

Gemini ultra 1.0 is still on version 1.0

Here's an updated table, with version numbers included and their status:

   Gemini Models     gemini.google.com
   ------------------------------------
   Gemini 1.0 Nano
   Gemini 1.0 Pro        -> Gemini (free)
   Gemini 1.0 Ultra      -> Gemini Advanced ($20/month)
   Gemini 1.5 Pro        -> announced on 2024-02-15 [1]
   Gemini 1.5 Ultra      -> no public announcements (assuming it's coming)

[1]: https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/gemini/gemini_...

For history of pre-Gemini models at Google, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39304441

Oh, it’s you again! Thanks for the update

That isn't right. The Pro/Ultra exists within each version.

If you look at the Gemini report it refers to "Gemini 1.5", then refers to "Gemini 1.5 Pro" and "Gemini 1.0 Pro" and "Gemini 1.5 Pro".

Okey, so if I understand this correctly:

- Gemini 1.5 is the new version of the model Gemini.

- They are at the moment testing it on Gemini Pro and calling it Gemini Pro 1.5

- The testing has shown that Gemini Pro 1.5 is delivering the same quality as Gemini Ultra 1.0 while using less computing power

- Gemini Ultra is still using Gemini 1.0 at the moment

Extremely confusing!

Maybe they use their own generative AI to do their branding

Reply on news.ycombinator.com