Gemini faces branding challenges, as does the wider AI industry

Google’s Wednesday announcement regarding new Gemini Live voice features makes a valid point: “You shouldn’t have to guess whether a task requires Spark, a Daily Brief, or a quick inbox search.” While Google presents this as a commitment to handling diverse tasks via voice commands, the execution undermines the message. The company has branded every Gemini AI feature separately, creating unnecessary complexity.

Within the Gemini app, users must navigate between chat, Spark, and Daily Brief—three distinct features, each with its own icon and navigation slot. This fragmentation complicates what could be a streamlined user experience, suggesting that Gemini still lacks a definitive standout feature.

Daily Brief serves as a prime example. It appears designed by an AI engineer rather than for everyday users. Functioning essentially as an AI-enhanced agenda, it provides “proactive, personalized updates” by pulling data from Google services like Gmail and Calendar. However, it fails to distinguish between urgent, actionable information and unsolicited reminders, such as prompts to continue previous chatbot research or, worse, resurfacing old Google searches.

The latter feature feels less useful and more intrusive. If I previously researched college scholarships or animal rescues, I do not necessarily want an AI agent reminding me of those topics later.

Spark presents the opposite issue. Although it is one of Gemini’s more practical features—an AI agent capable of executing tasks on your behalf—Google has unnecessarily branded it as a standalone product. While internal engineering teams may prefer dedicated branding, mainstream users do not need to select which “side” of the app to use for a specific task. Users should simply input their request, allowing the AI to determine the appropriate handling, including deploying an agent if necessary.

Notably, this issue extends beyond Gemini. The broader AI industry often exposes its internal architecture to consumers instead of abstracting it behind a simpler interface.

Users currently must decide whether to “chat” with Anthropic’s Claude or “Cowork” with its assistance. (Until recently, these two modes within the Claude app did not even share conversation history.) ChatGPT operates similarly, requiring users to switch between “Chat” and “Work.” This engineering-centric design makes interacting with AI feel unnatural, forcing consumers to learn brand names for what are essentially interaction modes driven by a single underlying model.

This complexity may explain why Apple’s relatively understated approach to Siri could ultimately resonate with consumers. iPhone and Apple device users do not need to alter their existing habits to utilize these features. Apple simply enhances the apps and tools people already use—such as Spotlight Search, the Photos app, the Camera, and Siri voice commands—without requiring them to learn a new interface.

This same principle likely drives the popularity of text-based AI services, where users simply text a chatbot—such as Poke, Ollie, Lindy, Orchid, Lucas, Folk, Tomo, Instinct, or others—and the assistant executes the requested action.

Text messaging offers a clean, simple, and well-understood user interface, eliminating the mental effort required to identify which feature or product within a larger application should be used.

As a16z investment partner Justine Moore recently noted, “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.”