Google’s AI Gamble Sparks Internal Tensions, Market Shifts | Image Source: www.wired.com
SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 15, 2025 – The arms race of artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a subplot of Silicon Valley – is the central scene. While technology giants like Google and OpenAI push the limits of AI-driven tools, bets are increasing not only for innovation, but also for long-standing business models, work morale and the future of the Internet as we know it. While Google continues to dominate global research traffic with over 14 billion daily consultations, recent challenges – from antimonopoly cases to increasing IA integration pains – mark a turbulent era for the technological titan once untouchable.
According to a study by SparkToro and Data shared by Rand Fishkin, despite the growing hypocrite around ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence tools, Google remains the deception in the search space. With 373 times more daily searches than ChatGPT, Google’s power over digital navigation remains narrow. But the numbers alone don’t tell the whole story. From legal battles to conflict of content and existential questions about the sustainability of AI-based business models, Google is under review on all sides, including expanding its AI capabilities through Gemini and other initiatives.
Google really loses AI’s career?
On the surface, Google seems to have its land. Gemini, its new AI assistant, has seen about 140 million global applications installed since the launch. This is a respectable number, until you compare it to the OpenAI ChatGPT, which has more than 600 million facilities, according to Sensor Tower data. However, crude installations do not paint the entire image. The massive ecosystem of Google services – from Gmail and YouTube to Google Maps – keeps billions of users daily in their orbit.
What is it? The real concern is not the current domain of Google – it is if you can keep it. According to Wired, Google AI Overview (AIO) is a key element of its strategy to adapt research to a new paradigm driven by AI. AIO uses summaries generated by AI to directly answer user questions, thus reducing the need to click on third-party websites. Although it is effective for users, it poses important problems for publishers who trust that click traffic for revenue.
What leads to internal dissatisfaction on Google?
In Google, the mood is less triumphant than you might expect. Several current and former employees, speaking with Wired, described an environment of constant discomfort and pressure. Some members of the Gemini team reportedly worked for three successful winter vacation seasons. Even Google co-founder Sergey Brin suggested that 60 weeks of work were ideal for productivity in this high performance IA career.
The pressure is not only on innovation but also on the financial side. Morgan Doug Anmuth, JP analyst, warned that up to 25% of Google’s search announcement revenues could be lost by ongoing antitrust trials. It’s not a little change. And with the IA models that cost billions of dollars in development and maintenance, not to mention the huge energy costs, there is a clock going on to turn these tools into profit-generating machines.
Can A Generative make money?
That’s about $1 billion. So far, companies have invested incredible amounts in generic training and scale models from AI, ChatGPT and Gemini to Claude and Grok. However, a clear and evolving monetization strategy remains difficult. According to HowToGeek, OpenAI began offering advanced features such as its AI operator system with a $200/month subscription. The operator can perform tasks in the real world like making trips by imitating human clicks and writing online, but it is still slow and not fully reliable.
Google is competing to add similar agent capabilities to its Gemini platform. Vision? A personal assistant who not only plans his meals but also makes ingredient shops and perhaps even criticizes his cooking technique. It’s a distant search cry. But as OpenAI has discovered, the load for AI tools directly is not yet viable for mass adoption. So Google adheres to what you know best: ads.
Why Chegg Sue Google?
Chegg’s request could be the coal mine canary. The company edtech states that Google AI Overviews significantly reduced its non-subscriber traffic, both by 49% in January 2025 compared to a decrease of 8% before in 2024. As Chegg said, Google’s AIO system effectively transforms the search engine into a “response engine”, increasing the content of other sites and now users on Google itself.
“As we claim in our complaint, Google AIO has transformed Google from a ‘search engine’ to ‘response engine’, showing the content generated by AI from third party websites like Chegg”
For content-based businesses, this change could be catastrophic. Chegg not only seeks compensation, but takes a stand against what many in the publishing and education industries regard as a removal of their intellectual property. Whether it is an application that gains legal traction or not, it marks a turning point in how brands approach digital visibility and revenue strategies.
Is ChatGPT really a Google killer?
The hymn around ChatGPT as a Google killer is, frankly, exaggerated – at least for now. Of course, open up. AI made some impressive updates. Starting February 5, 2025, users can now access ChatGPT’s search without needing to log in, making it easier to use this technology. And tools like your Chrome extension allow users to completely replace their search experience with ChatGPT.
But like the MakeUseOf report, even the fans of the tool recognize their shortcomings. For daily searches, such as finding a meme or looking for a specific product, ChatGPT may feel awkward. It does not manage advanced search operators well, it cannot return dynamic image or video results, and often opens a new window for each query. For users looking for tens or hundreds of times a day, it is a nightmare of conviviality.
What are the long-term risks to content and the web?
Perhaps the most existential threat of AI-led research tools such as ChatGPT and Google AIO is the risk they pose to the same ecosystem on which they depend: the open web. As PRMoment pointed out, at least people click on the original articles, advertising revenues that fund journalism, research and education are exhausted. Over time, this could lead to fewer editors, lower content quality and a greater variety of views available online.
This is the paradox of looking for IV: your comfort undermines your durability. As AI systems summarize or reimburse information across the web, incentives for creators to produce such information are reduced first. If publishers disappear, the same applies to training materials for future AI models. In this sense, unproven scraping of IV content could become a self-default cycle.
What can industry do to prevent collapse?
One possible solution is the licensing of content. Instead of scratching the web for free, AI companies could pay publishers to use their data – like Spotify pays royalties to artists. Another idea is to give publishers more control over how their content is indexed or used in AI summaries. However, these solutions are still under discussion, with little agreement across the industry.
Meanwhile, digital service providers and public relations professionals are invited to diversify. According to PRMoment, relying exclusively on Google for traffic is increasingly risky. Brands must explore email campaigns, the engagement of social networks and community platforms to ensure that they are not poorly prepared for the changing research landscape.
The battle for the future of research is much more than market share. It is about the long-term confidence, sustainability and health of the Internet. Google is not going anywhere soon, but it is not the pressure either. If AI is to be the basis of the next IT era, it must be built in fair terms, both for users and for the creators who drive it.
