My First Google I/O Left Me Confused: Who Benefits From All This AI?


Four days ago, I arrived in Mountain View, California, to cover my first Google I/O developer conference, expecting the showmanship and AI hype I’m accustomed to hearing at events like this. Don’t get me wrong — I definitely got my share of AI promo as Google becomes, in the words of one of its employees, “unabashedly agent-first.”

But really, what I found was a city split in two. 

The Google I/O keynote glittered with glossy demos. Execs took the stage to talk about lifestyle uses for new AI, staged scenes of curated travel and polished demos of parties planned by assistants. Backstage and onstage, the message was boundless possibility. Outside the tents, on the streets and in the rideshare queue, the mood felt decidedly different.

Read also: These Are a Few of My Favorite Things From Google I/O 2026

My Uber driver from the airport wove me through downtown Palo Alto. He asked why I was in town, and after I told him, he nodded and said that he had recently been laid off from Google. He was polite and pragmatic, talking about picking up ridesharing work full-time and leaning on friends and family. He asked what I thought of the company and its recent innovations before we parted. 

It was an ordinary conversation, but it stuck with me because here was a human consequence of a company that, on stage, was selling experiences that felt aimed at the 1%, while most of us are just focused on basic stability amid the rising cost of living.

My colleague Andrew Lanxon recently wrote a fantastic commentary about how Google assumes we’re all rich, hot, young and fit, and did I mention rich? There’s been some pushback to this deluge of demos and marketing that show how Google’s tech can be used to plan elaborate trips abroad and shopping sprees, and oh, Paris Hilton is here, because why not? 

Marketing is supposed to be somewhat aspirational, but it shouldn’t be alienating. And it’s led many to wonder: Who is this tech even for? It doesn’t seem to be resonating. 

No, really, who’s all this AI for?

That tension followed me as I went to work at I/O this year. I was able to sit down with Sameer Samat, president of the Android Ecosystem at Google, and he said that he thinks the key is “to be very intentional about the use of this technology,” and that the goal is “making this technology accessible to people and making it feel like it can help them in their daily life.” So I asked him directly about the recent pushback (as reflected in Lanxon’s earlier story) and how it seems that many people really do not feel this tech is accessible to them. 

“We’ll always have an aspirational element to it, but the way in which we see people using it is truly for the things that are causing them to spend time and are tedious in their day-to-day lives,” Samat said. “Especially with Android 17, we’re launching so many things that our goal is to try to give you time back.”

For instance, Samat said that when he uses the newly revealed Android XR smart glasses, it’s to do things like attempting to fix his air conditioner at home, aiming to eliminate the time it would take to read a long instruction manual or call a technician. He said these glasses would be helpful for things like assembling Ikea furniture or helping with your kids’ homework, and described exactly those grounded, everyday uses that resonate with many people.

So where was this talk of everyday use during the actual keynote?

I understand the product teams want broadly useful tools. But the marketing and certain moments on stage during the keynote felt different. Which audience is Google trying to reach?

Abrar and Macy standing next to a statue at Google I/O.

It’s always lovely to see coworkers who work on the opposite coast at these events. CNET’s Abrar Al-Heeti is on the left and Macy Meyer is on the right. 

Abrar Al-Heeti/CNET

I get that large companies often run multiple tracks at once. There’s the aspirational marketing that attracts attention and investors. And then there’s product-level problem solving that targets the mass market. The problem arises when those tracks pull in such different directions, and the intentions become difficult to parse. 

How Google can appeal to the other 99%

So I started thinking about how Google can actually ground its latest technology to, well, 99% of the world. I came up with three ways Google could make its messaging and demos feel more aligned with ordinary people and still be headline-grabbing. 

For starters, centering small, concrete moments in headline demos. Pick one everyday problem and show how the product solves it from end to end. Not a montage of vacations, but a short, believable story like a parent using glasses to help a child with homework, a nurse pulling up a patient’s notes hands-free or someone fixing a leaking pipe with step-by-step AI guidance. These are emotional and relatable, and they are scalable.

Next, Google could use real, unpolished users on stage. Instead of celebrity appeal and execs, invite ordinary people who could actually use the tech in everyday jobs. Authenticity sells usefulness better than a celebrity or executive endorsement. The audience trusts lived experience over production values.

Finally, Google could tie feature announcements to affordability and accessibility plans. If a capability requires high-end hardware or a pricey subscription, the company could pair it with a clear plan for lower-cost access, trade-in programs or partnerships with community organizations.

I left I/O with mixed signals. I left with the sense that Google’s storytelling could do more to reflect the realities of the majority of people who will not only live with this technology, but are directly affected by it — me, you and everyone who’s been laid off as the tech giant chases AI-everything, including my lovely Uber driver. The chance to transform mundane moments is as powerful as the chance to create dazzling new experiences. Grounding product narratives in everyday usefulness would make the company’s most ambitious claims feel more honest.

If Google wants to close the disconnect it created, it should show less staged fantasy and more ordinary life. That, more than any celebrity cameo, will tell people why this stuff matters.

Read also: Searching for Cancer Cures Is Part of Google’s AI Story. It Needs to Be More Than a Footnote





Source link

Leave a Reply

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get our latest articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, we promise.

Recent Reviews


If Game Two of their first-round playoff series with the Denver Nuggets saved the 2025-26 season for the Minnesota Timberwolves, Game Three showed why it should be saved. 

The Timberwolves were a different beast while decisively thumping the Nuggets, 113-96 Thursday night at Target Center, in a game that wasn’t nearly that close. These Wolves were the mythical creature we’d heard about in preseason lore, purposefully locked and loaded to be both marauding and staunch. They owned both ends of the court, gleefully transferring back and forth from irresistible force to immovable object. 

A quartet of Timberwolves deserve special mention, but it begins with Jaden McDaniels. After his team had toppled Denver to even the series at a game apiece Monday night, McDaniels used the sizable chip on his shoulder to etch some graffiti into the public discourse, casually castigating the most prominent Nuggets players by name as “bad defenders” in a matter-of-fact manner that had the media compelling him to confirm what he had just said. 

Trash talk is fleetingly fungible in the jaundiced social environment of 2026, functioning more like coupons than currency in that it needs to be rapidly leveraged before its expiration date. The common perception naturally was that McDaniels was calling out the Nuggets. But in a more subtle, profound way, he was also putting his teammates on notice. 

All season long the Timberwolves have procrastinated on their full potential, frequently demonstrating that their preseason talk about maturity and commitment was cheap. By contrast, those words uttered by McDaniels were expensive. He had just picked a fight with the opponent, leaving open the question of how many of his teammates would join him in the fray. 

That he would lead the charge was established early, after the Timberwolves’ top two scorers, Anthony Edwards and Julius Randle, had each missed a pair of open looks against Denver’s bad defenders in the game’s first 90 seconds.  

With the game still scoreless, the NBA’s best pick-and-roll combo, Nikola Jokic and Jamal Murray, were clustered around the foul line with Minnesota’s best defenders, McDaniels and Rudy Gobert. As they jammed up Jokic, McDaniels picked the ball loose and started sprint-dribbling the other way. To no one’s surprise, Donte “Ragu” DiVincenzo was also on his horse in transition, receiving a pass from McDaniels and then lobbing it back for a Jaden slam against a hapless Murray and Murray’s late-arriving teammate, Cam Johnson, who committed the foul that allowed McDaniels to finish with the “and-1” free throw. 

On the Timberwolves next offensive possession, McDaniels muscled his way to two offensive rebounds, feeding Ragu off the first one for a missed three-pointer, which he corralled for the second one and executed the putback in traffic. It was McDaniels 5, Nuggets 0, setting the tone for a game in which not only did the Wolves never trail, but never let the lead go under double digits after McDaniels made a consecutive pair of driving layups eight minutes into the game. 

“Spectacular. I thought his activity offensively in the first quarter was outstanding,” said Wolves coach Chris Finch after the game. “He was inspirational.” 

Among the most inspired were McDaniels fellow wing players, Ragu and Ayo Dosunmu. Ragu is exactly the kind of player who will have your back in a squabble, and his galvanized performance seemed borne of satisfaction that someone else had clarified the mission. As usual, the Timberwolves were at their best with him on the court: +20 in the 32:54 he played, -3 in the 15:06 he sat. 

“He makes so many hustle plays, momentum plays, different styles of plays.” Finch raved. “He’ll make a shot, get a transition bucket, he’ll rebound, get a steal, blow something up. So many different plays. He’s just a basketball player.”

Related: How the Timberwolves sparked a season-saving Game 2 comeback over the Nuggets in Denver

Then there was Ayo, whose fearless, blazing, bee-lines for the bucket were quicksilver kryptonite for a Nuggets defense that is neither swift nor rugged. “I’ve been waiting for him to wake up a little bit in this series,” Finch accurately observed. “The downhill mindset that he played with all season for us was back.”

Back with the sort of multipurpose propulsion that leaves witnesses with giddy whiplash. Ayo led the team with 25 points and 9 assists in 32 minutes of time-lapse hoops, the lone blemish being three clanks from long range. Why chuck treys when you can so easily undress players in the paint? Ayo was 10-for-12 on two-pointers and none of those dozen shots came from anywhere but beneath the rim. Five of his nine dimes likewise yielded layups or dunks, which means he personally accounted for 30 of the 68 points in the paint by the Timberwolves on Thursday, doubling up the Nuggets’ 34.

Which brings us to the non-wing in Game 3’s ring of honor, Rudy Gobert. For the third straight game, Gobert blunted the supposed advantage Denver had with the magical playmaker Nikola Jokic at the controls. Suffice to say that in the last five quarters, Jokic has shot 8-for-33 from the floor. If that continues, the Nuggets are toast in this series. 

When I asked Finch after the game if the herculean job Gobert was doing on Jokic made planning his defense simpler and better thus far, he replied, “Rudy is making all of us look good right now with his defense.” 

Amen.

If there is an asterisk on this game, it would be the absence of Denver’s brutishly versatile power forward Aaron Gordon. Nuggets coach David Adelman should be given a lot of credit for his honesty and transparency in dealing with the media during his first full season at the helm, but it came back to bite him and his team during the pregame presser, when he was clearly rattled and dejected by the sudden unavailability of Gordon, whose playing status went to “probable” to “out” in a period of a few hours due to a chronic calf strain. 

Gordon is far and away his team’s best defender, making the timing of his injury especially troublesome in the wake of McDaniels laying down his marker. Rattled is a good way to describe the entire team’s performance in the first quarter, an emotional wounding that needs to heal as fast as Gordon’s body if the Nuggets are going to be competitive in a series that had dramatically been flipped on its head over the past three days. 

That the Timberwolves played with such dominance despite mediocre outings from Ant and Randle would be a good thing for both of those current cornerstones to keep in mind. Ant was beset by foul trouble and Randle had a solid second quarter, but it stood out that neither player fully embraced what so often works on offense when the Wolves are at their best: Push the pace, move the ball, move without the ball, and make quick decisions. Ant and Randle can still be first among equals and blend into that catechism if they stay attuned to the possibilities of a greater good, one that all of sudden doesn’t have to end with them being postseason fodder for the Spurs or the Thunder. 

Not when you’ve got three wings at a collective peak, with a chaser of Rudy semi-clowning the Joker. 



Source link