Google's AI features just got more confusing
At this point in the AI race, most AI labs have figured out that the real money lies in enterprise use cases: big, agentic features that significantly impact the way major companies move and work. Google is one of those labs, which could explain why many of the company's more consumer-forward AI features unveiled at I/O on Tuesday feel somewhat ... underwhelming.
Not just that, but they're oddly disparate across the already multilayered Gemini landscape. This I/O in particular was a chance for Google to make everyday AI appeal to users, especially those skeptical of how hard the company is pushing it. While these new features do offer some conveniences, Google has packaged them in ways that could undermine their relevance and usability.
Many separate Lives
Google Workspace got a few new AI capabilities at I/O, the main two of which are Docs Live and Gmail Live. And yes, they're effectively the same functionality.
Like Gemini Live, which lets you use voice to engage with Gemini, Docs Live and Gmail Live let you query each application via voice.
In a demo, a Google employee used the former to generate a Google doc on her phone, cobbled together from disparate notes, presentations, and other contextual information she rattled off on the fly. To demo the latter, she asked Gmail questions like, "What's happening at school this week?" Gmail Live scanned her inbox and responded that there was a field trip to prep for.
Both features handled more complex follow-up questions about scheduling conflicts and changed topics seemingly without confusing related terms, like "field trip" and "trip to Detroit." But these are effectively Gemini Live functionality, applied to new apps. Why give them distinct names and silo them to specific places? Why not simply expand Gemini Live integrations?
None of the Google reps I asked on-site could really answer this.
It's an odd approach to making Workspace more accessible with AI when, up until now, Google has pretty much been putting Gemini in everything. Regardless of whether you like it or not, it's a clean, authority-building approach that gives users a one-stop shop for these subtle but convenient AI perks (that is, when they work). Besides, Gemini in Workspace already outfits Gmail, Docs, and Sheets with various capabilities -- why not put these under this umbrella, at least?
By splicing out near-identical functions into separate features, Google risks confusing or overwhelming the person it needs to convince: the long-term Google customer who's hesitant about AI or unsure whether it's relevant to them. That's much easier to do by saying Gemini sources information for you from several apps via voice than by naming a laundry list of independent product titles.
Google isn't alone in this: Microsoft has tacked Copilot onto most of its existing products, leaving users to navigate the differences between Copilot Chat, Microsoft 365 Copilot, and other overlapping terms. OpenAI risked similar confusion when it launched ChatGPT Apps, which are just integrations for ChatGPT with other apps -- not a new product or app creation platform like the name could suggest.
What's more, Docs Live and Gmail Live are rolling out to AI Pro and Ultra subscribers -- who pay $20 and at least $100 per month, respectively -- and will be in preview for Workspace business users this summer. It's unclear whether they'll eventually trickle down to all users or roll into Gemini itself.
These are quite niche use cases for standalone launches, let alone ones users will need to pay for. Both appear to be available only on mobile, at least for now, focused on making "on the go" tasks more seamless.
A very brief Daily Brief
Adapted from an experiment called CC, announced late last year, the new Daily Brief feature sources information from your email, calendar, and other connected apps to give you a rundown of what your day looks like. For those worried about hallucinated meetings, it also includes links to where in your ecosystem it pulled each agenda item from.
I say feature, but Google called Daily Brief "a new agent." Not to bury us in semantics, but unless I'm missing something, this feature doesn't strike me as living up to the standard of agent that OpenClaw set this year.
To be fair, Daily Brief does demonstrate some level of deeper reasoning: We haven't been able to test it ourselves yet, but in two separate demos, it went beyond the present day to flag upcoming charges for later in the week. It also determined that the test user was about to renovate their kitchen, suggesting they set up a temporary cooking station.
But that's where the "agent" stopped. When I asked whether the feature could take action from any of those items, a Google employee told me a user should just start a chat with Gemini or move into Spark, Google's new "personal agent" that lives (again, confusingly) inside Gemini.
Not to sound like a brat, but ... that's it?
A daily briefing is a product of an agent's summarization work. But is the brief itself an agent? By Google's definition, I'm not convinced (though hands-on testing may reveal more agentic skills). While reviewing data from your connected apps requires agentic capabilities, Daily Brief is a pretty narrow application of those abilities.
In the grand scheme of AI expectations, Google is also somewhat late.
"One of the things that OpenClaw is known for is its ability to give you a daily briefing. People also use Claude Cowork for it," ZDNET contributor David Gewirtz said. "It is certainly not a new capability in the world of AI. People have been talking about daily briefings ever since agents started to become usable."
Given that context, I have the same question I had about the many Lives: Why not just roll Daily Brief into Gemini as a new (perhaps long-overdue) feature?
AI tools need clarity
Gemini's various levels of capability are already split across interfaces, separated only by slightly different names. Gemini Intelligence, an Android-specific arm of the agent, launched earlier this month with agentic, multitask capabilities. That's different from Gemini Personal Intelligence, by the way, which customizes your query responses based on the data you give it access to.
Then there's Gemini in Search and the standalone Gemini app.
This setup risks making what Gemini can do so illegible that users simply tune out. Technically speaking, Google might separate each of these Gemini arms based on how they perform across different surfaces: To a developer or product manager, it might make sense to distinguish the Android version of a Gemini product.
But from a marketing perspective, maybe that doesn't need to be so visible to the consumer.
Even if AI labs are now following Anthropic's success and focusing on enterprise, the field of consumer AI tools is still relevant -- and crowded. Making it harder for users to keep your products straight probably doesn't help.
The fragmentation also extends to pricing. Google now offers free Gemini access, a Gemini Advanced subscription ($19.99/month), Gemini for Workspace add-ons, and enterprise tiers. Each tier unlocks different features, but the naming variations create confusion. For example, Gemini Personal Intelligence is only available to Advanced subscribers, while Gemini Intelligence is a separate Android system app accessible on supported Pixel and Samsung devices.
When users encounter terms like "Live," "Intelligence," "Spark," and "Daily Brief," they may not realize these are all part of the same underlying model. Instead, they might perceive a disjointed collection of tools rather than a cohesive assistant. This perception could undermine adoption, especially among less tech-savvy users who are already wary of AI integration.
Google's strategy appears to be one of omnipresence: embed AI everywhere, label each incarnation distinctly, and hope users piece it together. But as the company adds more agents and specialized features, the lack of a unified brand identity for Gemini may become a liability.
Meanwhile, competitors like OpenAI have kept a simpler structure. ChatGPT has one main app, with plugins and custom GPTs adding functionality. Anthropic's Claude offers a clear tier system (Claude Pro, Claude Team, Claude Enterprise) without overlapping names. Google, by contrast, seems to create a new name for every integration, even when the core functionality is identical.
The result is an ecosystem that rewards dedicated followers who track announcements closely but may alienate casual users. For Google to succeed in consumer AI, it must decide whether Gemini is a platform, a product, or a collection of features. Currently, it's trying to be all three, leading to the confusion highlighted at I/O 2026.
As the AI landscape evolves, simplicity and clarity will become competitive advantages. Google still has time to streamline its offering, but the window is narrowing. For now, users will have to navigate a maze of names to unlock the convenience that AI promises.
Source: ZDNET News