The Software as a Service (SaaS) model is great because you get new features fast and easily compared to standalone apps. All a user has to do usually is to refresh the web browser tab and boom, the new stuff appears.
That is exactly what happened this end, when I reloaded the Google Workspace tab and a dialogue appeared, announcing Gemini Artificial Intelligence (AI) is now available in Gmail.
There was nothing I needed to do, nor the admin in charge of Google Workspace. Gemini AI's right there, in a window, ready for Business and Enterprise subscribers to prompt it.
What's the deal then? Well, AI is now integrated into your organisation's productivity apps. That's email, documents, spreadsheets, presentations and it processes your organisation's data. That's not a small feature add-on. It's a big change, that needed prior notification and explicit consent, neither of which were forthcoming from Google.
You could argue that Google already does data processing, like for Gmail spam filtering and for showing "relevant" ads in unpaid accounts. That is true, but AI is a next-level different kettle of fish that can get things wrong. Apple has had to drop its AI notifications summaries because they were terrible for example.
For most users, AI is black box tech that they don't fully understand. Some people do, and have figured out how to get around guardrails in the technology, to use it for abusive purposes as Microsoft which is massive on AI, noted.
If you don't want Gemini AI in Workspace, tough. As Joseph Cox at 404Media discovered, you can only partially get rid of it.
Will your organisation's information leak to Google? That's hard to say, because Google says it won't happen without your permission. As Joseph points out, the trouble here is that he doesn't know if he has given permission, or not.
This is what Google says:
----------------------------
Safeguarding your interactions with AI
We know that data security, confidentiality, and compliance are top priorities for business leaders when adopting AI, and we are committed to helping you keep your data safe.
-
Your data is your data: We don’t use your data, prompts, or generated responses to train Gemini models outside of your domain without permission. We don’t sell your data or use it for ads targeting.
-
You are in control: We built Gemini with enterprise-grade controls to help you roll out Gemini while protecting your sensitive data. Gemini only retrieves relevant data that the user has permission to access, and your existing Workspace data security and sovereignty controls are automatically applied.
-
You can stay compliant: Gemini for Workspace and the Gemini app are one of the first generative AI productivity solutions to attain a comprehensive set of safety, privacy, and security certifications, including SOC 1/2/3, ISO 27001/17/18, and ISO 42001, and can help you meet HIPAA compliance.
----------------------------
This sort of forced enrolment into AI use is jarring to say the least. It made me wonder if Google Workspace accounts that use the tech giant's Advanced Account Protection which the company "strongly recommends that journalists, activists, business executives, and people involved in elections enroll [sic]" is subject to the same potential information leakage to Gemini AI, despite the big promise of keeping users' information secure.
Furthermore, there's no free AI lunch. While you don't have to pay an additional US$32 a month for Gemini, the subscription price per user still goes up by US$2 per month. A Workspace Business Plus subscription "will be automatically updated" (jeez Google, did Gemini come up with that phrase?) to NZ$22 a month.
It's entirely possible that there are useful aspects to Gemini for Google Workspace, but to paraphrase the Internet Lord of the Rings meme, "one does not simply walk into AI". It's fair to assume that Google, like Microsoft which has also slapped Copilot AI onto its subscribers' accounts while hiking prices, were concerned that the uptake of the technology was low as users weren't sure about it.
The tech giants may have invested billions in AI, but adding it like this smacks of desperation.
Update To be fair to Google, there is an upside for subscribers who had already signed up for Gemini. The monthly outlay looks to be cheaper for them.
19 Comments
You can avoid the Microsoft price hike and the automatic inclusion of AI
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/tech-insider-how-to-avoid-microsoft…
https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/you-don-t-have-to-pay-the-microsof…
According to Reddit, Consumer NZ has taken this up with the Commerce Commission.
I've a jolly good mind to take up a subscription to Consumer NZ because of this. Methinks money spent with Consumer NZ is going to be a good investment in the long run as the USA Plutocracy seeks to fleece EVERYONE THEY CAN.
(Note: You can 'opt out' of the Co-Pilot bullshit. But MS don't tell you this - and you need to waste a LOT OF TIME DOING IT !!! Not for the first time I'm throwing expletives at these profiteering pricks!)
"Far too easy for the kids and grandkids to click and subscribe to various games and other stuff."
Say what? Just about every operating system, from phones to PCs and MACs, allows separate logons.
Every person in our household logs on to the device's operating system with a separate User Id and everyone keeps their passwords private.
Zero chance of anyone spending anything on someone else's cards. My wife and I have admin rights to change anyone's passwords should we need to see what they've been up to. But in doing this, that person knows. Of course, there are other way to see what people have been doing but only I know how to do this (and some stuff, e.g. CC details, are just too hard to extract). And thankfully, I've never needed to, except for debugging stuff.
Office365 for companies has inbuilt statistics that show how much it is being used and what features are being used (Applications, SharePoint, File Shares etc). They're quite detailed.
When I last looked, those statistics indicated that most users didn't use many of the features on offer.
With Microsoft charging companies on potential use (i.e. the number of employees) versus actual use, it's a gravy train they can continuously milk. On the bright side, HR would say it's an ideal training opportunity, however, they're not been great at checking who is using the new functionality.
So if companies monitored what they were using, they might have a chance at controlling the tax they pay. Ideally, Microsoft should charge on actual use, not potential use. How many other companies would get away with that in a truly competitive marketplace ?
Good point, Timutei.
I've had the MS sales people say to me, "It's only $350 per seat, per year!". My response has been, "And if 1,000 people never use those features, we're wasting $350,000 per year."
To be fair to MS though, there are usually alternative licensing models that'll get you want you need. (SharePoint wasn't one of them when I was trying to license up 7,500 seats. Hope they've changed it by now. We got around their intransigence with a slick bit of s/w but it still initially cost the client a five figure sum to develop it. The client got credit notes up to what they paid when we resold that s/w - it worked out well.)
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.