Google’s Gemini has a branding problem, and so does the rest of AI

Google Gemini 存在品牌定位问题，整个 AI 行业亦是如此

Google gets something right in its Wednesday announcement about new Gemini Live voice features when it says, “You shouldn’t have to guess whether a task requires Spark, a Daily Brief, or a quick inbox search.” Google means that as a promise — that the updated Gemini app can handle a variety of tasks via voice commands. But there’s a ridiculousness here: Google has given every Gemini AI feature under the sun its own branding, which undercuts that very message.

在周三关于 Gemini Live 新语音功能的公告中，Google 提到了一句很在理的话：“你不应该去猜测一项任务究竟是需要 Spark、Daily Brief 还是快速收件箱搜索。” Google 的本意是做出承诺——即更新后的 Gemini 应用可以通过语音指令处理各种任务。但这里存在一个荒谬之处：Google 为 Gemini 下的每一个 AI 功能都赋予了独立的品牌名称，这反而削弱了其想要传达的核心信息。

In the Gemini app, users can switch between chat, Spark, and Daily Brief — three separate features, each with its own icon and place in the app’s navigation. This clutters up what could otherwise be a more straightforward consumer experience, and it suggests that Gemini is still struggling to find a killer feature.

在 Gemini 应用中，用户可以在聊天（Chat）、Spark 和 Daily Brief 之间切换——这是三个独立的功能，每个功能都有自己的图标和在应用导航中的位置。这使得原本可以更简洁的用户体验变得杂乱无章，也表明 Gemini 仍在努力寻找一个真正的“杀手级”功能。

Take Daily Brief, for example. The feature comes across as something an AI engineer, not an everyday user, would think is clever. It’s essentially an AI-enabled agenda that offers “proactive, personalized updates” using data pulled from Google’s apps, like Gmail and Calendar. In practice, though, the Brief can’t tell the difference between information that’s urgent or actionable and unsolicited nudges to follow up on other things — like prompting you to continue research you started in the chatbot, or worse, resurfacing your prior Google searches. That second part doesn’t feel useful; it feels creepy. So what if I had been researching college scholarships or animal rescues on Google? That doesn’t mean I want an AI tapping me on the shoulder about them later.

以 Daily Brief 为例。这个功能给人的感觉是 AI 工程师觉得很聪明，但普通用户却未必买账。它本质上是一个 AI 驱动的日程表，利用从 Gmail 和日历等 Google 应用中提取的数据提供“主动、个性化的更新”。然而在实际使用中，Brief 无法区分哪些信息是紧急或可操作的，哪些是无关紧要的提醒——比如提示你继续在聊天机器人中开始的研究，或者更糟糕的是，重新弹出你之前的 Google 搜索记录。后一种情况不仅没用，反而让人感到毛骨悚然。如果我曾在 Google 上搜索过大学奖学金或动物救援信息，那并不代表我希望 AI 之后再来提醒我这些事。

Spark has the opposite problem. It’s one of the more useful aspects of Gemini’s app — an AI agent that can take action on your behalf — but Google has packaged it as its own stand-alone brand, which it doesn’t need to be. Sure, internally, Google engineers may want to be on the Spark team, and that’s fine — but a mainstream AI app user definitely does not need to think about which “side” of the AI app they need to be in for a given task. They should just be able to type their request, and the AI figures out how to handle it, spinning up an agent if the task calls for one.

Spark 则面临相反的问题。它是 Gemini 应用中较有用的功能之一——一个可以代表你采取行动的 AI 代理——但 Google 将其包装成了一个独立的品牌，这完全没必要。当然，在公司内部，Google 工程师可能希望隶属于 Spark 团队，这没问题；但主流 AI 应用用户绝对不需要去思考为了完成某项任务，他们需要进入 AI 应用的哪一个“分区”。他们应该只需要输入请求，AI 就能自行判断如何处理，并在需要时自动启动相应的代理。

In fairness, the problem isn’t limited to Gemini. The AI industry at large seems to expose its internal architecture directly to consumers rather than hiding it behind a simpler interface. Today, people have to think about whether they want to “chat” with Anthropic’s Claude or “Cowork” with its help. (Until this week, those two modes inside the Claude app didn’t even share a memory of past conversations.) ChatGPT is the same, requiring you to swap between “Chat” and “Work.” This is the kind of engineering-minded design that makes engaging with AI feel unnatural.

平心而论，这个问题不仅限于 Gemini。整个 AI 行业似乎都倾向于将内部架构直接暴露给消费者，而不是将其隐藏在更简单的界面之后。如今，人们必须考虑是想与 Anthropic 的 Claude“聊天（Chat）”，还是与其“协作（Cowork）”。（直到本周之前，Claude 应用内的这两种模式甚至无法共享过往对话的记忆。）ChatGPT 也是如此，要求你在“聊天”和“工作”模式之间切换。这种工程思维导向的设计，让与 AI 的互动显得很不自然。

Consumers are being asked to learn the brand names for what are essentially interaction modes or surfaces, powered by a company’s AI model. This may be why Apple’s somewhat anticlimactic approach to Siri could ultimately win over consumers. Apple device owners don’t have to change any of their existing behavior to take advantage of it. Apple simply makes the apps and features that people already use — like Spotlight Search, the Photos app, the iPhone’s camera, and Siri voice requests — smarter without asking users to learn a new interface.

消费者被迫去学习那些本质上只是由公司 AI 模型驱动的交互模式或界面的品牌名称。这或许就是为什么苹果对 Siri 那种略显平淡的处理方式最终可能会赢得消费者的原因。苹果设备用户无需改变任何现有习惯即可使用它。苹果只是让人们已经在使用的应用和功能——如聚焦搜索（Spotlight Search）、照片应用、iPhone 相机和 Siri 语音请求——变得更智能，而无需用户去学习新的界面。

This same principle may explain the rise of text-based AI services, where users simply text a chatbot — like Poke, Ollie, Lindy, Orchid, Lucas, Folk, Tomo, Instinct, or others — and the assistant just does what’s asked. Text messaging is a clean and simple, well-understood user interface, and it doesn’t require extra mental effort to figure out which feature or product inside a larger app you’re supposed to use. As a16z investment partner Justine Moore recently wrote, “People don’t want to open an app every time they need help — they want a contact they can text like a friend. And the gold standard is iMessage.”

同样的原则或许也能解释基于文本的 AI 服务的兴起，用户只需给聊天机器人（如 Poke、Ollie、Lindy、Orchid、Lucas、Folk、Tomo、Instinct 等）发短信，助手就能完成任务。短信是一种简洁、易懂的用户界面，不需要额外的脑力去思考在大型应用中应该使用哪个功能或产品。正如 a16z 投资合伙人 Justine Moore 最近所写：“人们不想每次需要帮助时都打开一个应用——他们想要一个像朋友一样可以发短信联系的人。而黄金标准就是 iMessage。”