Google Opal

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Access, Permissions, and Authenticity

  • Many balked at Opal demanding “see and download all your Google Drive files,” even when they tried to restrict access to a single folder.
  • Several declined to proceed on principle, fearing this might implicitly allow training on their Drive data or expand Google’s use of that data.
  • Some argued that Google already physically hosts Drive, so extra concern is inconsistent; others countered that they trust core Google infra more than a new experimental product team.
  • The opal.google TLD (rather than opal.google.com) made some uneasy about authenticity and phishing risk.

Geographic Availability and UX Friction

  • A large number of people hit “not available in your country,” especially across the EU, often only after multiple login/consent steps.
  • Error messages like “Error checking geo access” and non-functional sample apps (static pages, unresponsive restart buttons) reinforced a sense of half-baked UX.
  • The animated search bar on the landing page misled some into thinking it was interactive, further reducing confidence.

What Opal Actually Is and Early Impressions

  • Clarified by a few: Opal is essentially a visual/“codeless” way to build Gemini “Gems” (agent-like mini-apps) that run in the Gemini ecosystem and use Drive as backend storage.
  • One tester reported that attempts at a “supervisor with sub-agents” pattern led to all paths running in parallel, slow and token-wasteful; for their use cases, a single custom prompt worked better.
  • Example apps sometimes worked in specific browsers and produced decent outputs (e.g., book recommendations), but nothing felt “revolutionary.”

Trust, Lock-In, and Product Longevity

  • Strong skepticism that a codeless, Google-hosted app builder won’t become a hostage: Google controls runtime, pricing, and access, and can lock users out if accounts are flagged.
  • Many expect Opal to be another short-lived experiment destined for “killed by Google,” making developers reluctant to invest time or build anything serious.

Impact on the Web and Content Quality

  • The flagship example—“an app that writes blog posts”—was widely criticized as emblematic of AI-generated “slop” further degrading the web and search.
  • Multiple comments tied this to Google’s ad-driven incentives: SEO content farms already weakened search; AI just industrializes the same dynamic.
  • Some noted Google has long shifted search toward keeping users on Google (instant answers, AMP, AI overviews), with publishers losing traffic and revenue.

Competition, Monopolization, and Internal Fragmentation

  • Some predict Google will use tools like Opal to quickly clone any successful AI SaaS idea and monopolize consumer AI, given control over infrastructure and distribution.
  • Others doubt Google’s execution: the company already has a confusing array of overlapping AI products (Gemini, AI Studio, Firebase Studio, Opal, etc.), suggesting a lack of coherent direction rather than a clean monopoly play.

AI vs. Developers and “Skill-Free” Creation

  • A few worried about the signal to Android/Flutter developers: Google appears to be investing in tools to bypass traditional app development.
  • Others responded that if an app can be replaced by a few prompts, it likely wasn’t providing much differentiated value.
  • Some criticized the broader “build things fast without real skills” ethos as incompatible with durable, high-quality software.

Community and Support Channels

  • The “Join our Discord” call-to-action surprised many, given Google’s own chat products; it was read both as startup-like signaling and a practical way to reach the hacker/Discord demographic.
  • People noted similar patterns in other Google AI initiatives (Gemini, Labs, GSoC) using Discord or Slack instead of Google’s native tools.