Google

Google leaves the door open for ads in Gemini

Google leaves the door open for ads in Gemini

Nick Fox runs Google’s Knowledge and Information division. That means he is responsible for Search, Gemini, and the Assistant. Wired sat down with him recently and the interview is making rounds, mostly because of one thing he said about advertising.

Before we get into that, a quick note on who Nick Fox is. He spent years at Google running ads. That is not a criticism, it is context. The person now overseeing Gemini’s direction came up through the advertising side of the business. Google made that choice deliberately, and it is worth knowing.

Now, the thing everyone is running with.

In January, Demis Hassabis told reporters at Davos that Google had no current plans to put ads inside the Gemini app. Ten weeks later, Fox told Wired that advertising in Gemini is not off the table and that learnings from AI Mode, which does carry ads, will “likely carry over” to the broader Gemini product over time.

Does that mean ads are definitively coming to Gemini? No. Fox was careful. He framed it as a prioritization question, not an announcement. The honest read is that nobody at Google has decided yet, which is actually worth saying plainly instead of treating this as a bombshell. It is not a bombshell. It is a company with 750 million Gemini users and an expensive AI infrastructure bill leaving its options open. That is a business, not a conspiracy.

What is actually interesting is the specific thing Fox called his “holy grail.” Personalization. Gemini already connects to Gmail, Photos, and Calendar through a feature called Personal Intelligence. The product knows a lot about you, by design, because that is what makes it useful.

And that is where the real question lives. Not whether ads are coming, but what an ad means inside a system that has read your emails. Search ads were always a legible transaction. You searched, Google showed you results, some were sponsored, most were labeled. You knew the deal. A personalized AI assistant that also carries advertising is a structurally different arrangement, and nobody, including Google, has fully worked out what the user relationship looks like inside it.

Fox acknowledged this. He said user data will not be sold or shared. He said the company is still figuring out what users will accept in this context. These are not the words of someone with a plan already in motion.

So let us be precise about what this story actually is. An executive with an advertising background now runs the product. A CEO said no ads in January. That same executive said not necessarily in March. A decision has not been made.

Whether the hype around this interview is proportionate to what was actually said is a fair question. The underlying tension it points to, between a product built on intimacy and a business built on advertising, is real and worth watching.

That part is not hype. That part is just the math.

Anthropic

Anthropic invests $100 million into the Claude Partner Network

Anthropic invests $100 million into the Claude Partner Network

Most of the coverage around this announcement will focus on the number. $100 million, Claude Partner Network, Accenture training 30,000 people, Deloitte in, Cognizant in, Infosys in. That is the press release reading itself back to you. It is accurate and it is not the point.

The point is what Anthropic is actually building, and how fast.

Claude is in Chrome. It is in Excel. It is in PowerPoint. It is in Slack. It has a desktop app, an enterprise plan, a coding product, and a consumer subscription tier. It runs on AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure simultaneously, something no other frontier model does. It now has a formal partner network with nine-figure backing and the four largest professional services firms on the planet co-signing the vision.

That is not a model company. That is a company building the operating system for work. And it is doing it methodically, one surface area at a time, in a way that is easy to miss if you are only reading individual announcements instead of laying them next to each other.

The SaaS industry has had a version of this conversation before and mostly dismissed it. The argument was always that AI would augment existing tools, not replace them. The Partner Network is the clearest signal yet that Anthropic is not thinking in terms of augmentation. A Code Modernization starter kit that helps enterprises migrate legacy codebases. Certifications for solution architects. Sales playbooks. A services directory where enterprise buyers find Claude-certified implementation partners. This is not the infrastructure of a company selling a feature. This is the infrastructure of a company replacing a category.

The second-order effect worth watching is what happens to the software companies currently sitting inside the workflows Anthropic is systematically entering. Project management, customer support, financial analysis, code review, document processing. Claude has a stated solution for every one of these. The Partner Network is how it gets into the enterprise deals where those solutions get chosen.

For the consultancies involved, the math is straightforward. Accenture does not train 30,000 people on a tool unless it expects that tool to generate a practice worth building. What Accenture is signaling, more than anything Anthropic said in the announcement, is that enterprise demand for Claude implementation is real enough to staff for at scale.

The companies that should be reading this most carefully are not the other AI labs. They are the mid-size SaaS businesses whose entire value proposition is a workflow that Claude can now run inside a side panel.

That conversation is only just beginning, and $100 million is a very deliberate way of starting it.

Ai role in B2B SaaS marketing strategy

AIs Role in B2B SaaS Marketing Strategies: Why this doesn’t fix your marketing.

AIs Role in B2B SaaS Marketing Strategies: Why this doesn’t fix your marketing.

AI did not create the problems in B2B SaaS marketing. It just made them louder, faster, and harder to ignore. Here is what AI is actually supposed to do for your marketing strategy and why almost everyone is using it wrong.

Every SaaS marketing team has AI in the stack now.

Most of them are using it to write more blog posts nobody reads, generate more email sequences nobody opens, and produce more ad variations nobody clicks—despite the availability of proven SaaS content marketing frameworks that prioritize insight over volume. And then they wonder why the metrics are not moving.

So before asking what AI can do for your marketing strategy, you have to ask what your marketing strategy was actually doing before AI showed up. Because if the answer is producing volume and hoping something converts, AI just gave you more of the same problem at scale.

What AI Is Actually Being Used For vs. What It Should Be Used For

What Is Happening Right Now

Go look at the content output of any mid-market SaaS company from the last eighteen months, especially those following traditional SaaS inbound marketing approaches.

The volume went up. The quality went sideways. The ideas are the same ideas, written in a slightly different order, optimized for keywords that everyone in the category is optimizing for simultaneously.

AI made the content assembly line faster. It did not make the thinking better.

This is the fundamental misread. Teams saw AI and saw a production tool. A way to do more with less. A way to fill the content calendar without hiring three more writers.

And production is useful. That is not the argument.

The argument is that production was never the bottleneck. Thinking was the bottleneck. Ideas were the bottleneck. Understanding the buyer deeply enough to say something worth reading was the bottleneck.

AI did not fix that bottleneck. It removed the friction from the wrong part of the process entirely.

What the Role Should Actually Be

AI’s real value in B2B SaaS marketing statistics is as a thinking accelerator, not a content generator, something many modern AI trends in SaaS marketing are beginning to highlight.

There is a difference. A significant one.

When you use AI to generate content, you are asking it to produce output. When you use AI to accelerate thinking, you are asking it to stress-test your assumptions, surface patterns in data you cannot hold in your head at once, simulate how a specific buyer would respond to a specific message, and identify the gaps in your positioning before a real prospect finds them.

That second set of uses is where AI changes the quality of the work. Not just the speed.

The organizations that are genuinely ahead right now are not the ones publishing the most AI-generated content, but the ones aligning AI insights with a clear SaaS product marketing strategy. They are the ones using AI to think more rigorously about their buyer, their market, and their strategy before a single piece of content gets created.

Where AI Genuinely Changes B2B SaaS Marketing Strategy

Understanding the Buyer at a Scale That Was Not Previously Possible is becoming easier when companies combine AI with structured B2B SaaS marketing segmentation.

The best marketers have always understood their buyers deeply. The constraint was always time and capacity.

You can only do so many customer interviews. You can only read so many sales call transcripts. You can only synthesize so much signal from so many sources before the human brain hits its limits.

AI removes most of those limits.

Feed it every sales call transcript from the last quarter and combine those insights with key SaaS marketing metrics to uncover patterns you might otherwise miss. Every customer support ticket. Every churned customer exit interview. Every win-loss note your sales team has ever written. Ask it to find the patterns.

What objection comes up most consistently before a deal closes? What language do buyers use to describe the problem your product solves? What does the moment of urgency actually look like in their words, not your marketing team’s words?

That synthesis used to take months of qualitative research. It now takes hours.

And the output is not content. It is understanding. This is what a marketing strategy is supposed to be built on.

Finding the Gaps in Your Positioning Before Your Competitors Do

Most SaaS companies have positioning that made sense when they wrote it and has not been stress-tested against the current market since, which is why a strong SaaS market strategy is critical.

The category has shifted. New competitors have entered. Buyer priorities have changed because the economic environment has changed. But the positioning deck is the same one from eighteen months ago.

AI can run that stress test in real time.

Put your current positioning against every competitor’s messaging. Put it against the actual language buyers use when they search for solutions to the problem you solve. Put it against the objections your sales team is hearing on calls right now.

Where are the gaps? Where are you saying things that nobody is searching for? Where are you missing the language that would make a buyer feel immediately understood?

That analysis used to be expensive and slow. It is now fast and available to any team willing to actually use AI for thinking instead of typing.

Mapping the Buyer Journey With Actual Specificity

One of the persistent failures in B2B SaaS marketing strategy is the buyer journey map that is generic enough to apply to any company in any category, often because teams rely on simplified SaaS marketing funnel models.

Awareness. Consideration. Decision. A funnel with names instead of insight.

AI can make buyer journeys specific. Not because it is magical, but because it can synthesize the data your organization already has and surface what is actually happening at each stage instead of what the framework says should be happening.

What are buyers actually doing in the awareness stage? What are they searching for? What content are they consuming? What conversations are happening in communities before they ever reach your website?

What kills deals in the consideration stage often becomes clearer when teams analyze B2B SaaS funnel conversion benchmarks. Not in theory. In your specific deals, with your specific buyers, in your specific category.

What makes the difference between a closed win and a closed loss in the final stage? What did the champion need to say to get internal buy-in? What did the competitor do or say that nearly cost you the deal?

AI synthesizes that from the data you already have. Then your marketing strategy is built on what is actually true about your buyer instead of what a generic framework assumes.

The Tactical Stuff Everyone Is Already Doing and Why It Is Not Enough

Personalization at Scale

Yes, AI enables personalization at a scale that was not previously practical. Personalized sequences. Dynamic content. Messaging that adapts based on firmographic and behavioral signals.

This is genuinely useful.

It is also table stakes within about eighteen months of everyone having access to the same tools. When every SaaS company is running AI-personalized sequences, the personalization stops being a differentiator and starts being the baseline expectation.

The teams winning with AI personalization right now are the ones pairing it with actually insightful messaging. Personalization is the delivery mechanism. The insight is the variable that determines whether it works.

Without the insight, you have a very efficient system for sending mediocre messages to the right person at the right time.

Content Optimization

AI is genuinely good at analyzing what is working in content and surfacing why.

What topics are driving the most qualified traffic? What headlines are producing the most engagement from your ICP specifically, not just any visitor? What content is being consumed by buyers who eventually convert versus buyers who never do?

That analysis is valuable. Most teams are not doing it because it requires connecting multiple data sources and running analyses that are tedious to do manually.

AI makes it fast. Use it for that.

Competitive Intelligence

AI can process competitive signals at a volume no human team can match.

Every competitor’s content output. Every review on G2 and Capterra that mentions a competitor. Every LinkedIn post from a competitor’s customers is talking about their experience. Every change in competitor pricing or positioning.

That intelligence used to require a dedicated analyst or an expensive tool that only scraped the surface.

Now it is available to any marketing team willing to build the workflow.

The teams using this well are not using it to copy competitors. They are using it to find the gaps in the market that nobody is serving well yet and building content and positioning around those gaps before anyone else notices them.

The Honest Conversation About What AI Cannot Do

It cannot think for you

This is the part of the AI conversation that gets skipped because it is uncomfortable.

AI does not have a point of view on your market. It does not know why your specific product is better for your specific buyer in your specific competitive context. It does not have the judgment to know which insight is worth pursuing and which one is noise.

You have to bring that.

When teams use AI to generate a strategy without doing the thinking first, the output looks like a strategy. It has the right sections. It uses the right language. It would pass a quick scan.

It does not work because it was not built on genuine understanding. It was built on what a language model predicts a marketing strategy should look like.

There is a version of an AI-assisted marketing strategy that is genuinely transformative. It requires the human to bring the thinking and use AI to stress-test, synthesize, and scale that thinking. Not to replace it.

It cannot Build Trust.

Buyers in B2B SaaS are more skeptical than they have ever been, which is why thought leadership in SaaS marketing has become increasingly important.

Part of that is the sheer volume of AI-generated content they are now receiving that looks thoughtful and says nothing. They are pattern-matching it faster than most marketing teams realize.

Trust in B2B comes from demonstrating a genuine understanding of the buyer’s world. From having a point of view that is specific and defensible. From saying things that a buyer recognizes as true from their own experience.

AI can help you find what to say. It cannot create the organizational credibility that makes a buyer believe you when you say it.

That comes from doing the actual work. Talking to customers. Having real opinions. Being willing to publish thinking that not everyone agrees with. Building a body of work over time that reflects a genuine perspective on the market.

AI can accelerate that. It cannot replace it.

What This Means for Your Marketing Strategy Right Now

Stop evaluating AI by how much more content it can help you produce. Instead, measure its impact on strategic decisions and overall B2B SaaS marketing ROI. Instead, evaluate it by how much better it makes your thinking about your buyer, your positioning, and your market.

Use it to synthesize a signal you already have but cannot process at scale. Use it to stress-test assumptions your team has been treating as facts. Use it to find the gaps in your category that nobody is owning yet. Use it to simulate how a specific buyer with a specific problem in a specific situation would respond to your current messaging.

Then use the output of that thinking to create less content that is actually worth reading—focusing on high-performing SaaS content formats that truly resonate with buyers.

B2B SaaS marketing does not have a production problem. It has a thinking problem. AI is the most powerful thinking tool most marketing teams have ever had access to.

Most of them are using it to type faster.

That is the gap. And it is enormous for the teams that see it.

Open ai

OpenAI to acquire Promptfoo

OpenAI to acquire Promptfoo

On Monday, OpenAI announced it is acquiring Promptfoo, a two-year-old AI security startup founded by Ian Webster and Michael D’Angelo.

The deal brings Promptfoo’s technology into OpenAI Frontier, the company’s enterprise platform for what it is now calling “AI coworkers.” Terms were not disclosed. The Promptfoo team will join OpenAI.

Here is what Promptfoo actually does, because it matters more than the acquisition price. It helps companies find out what their AI systems will do when someone tries to break them. Prompt injections, jailbreaks, data leaks, tool misuse, out-of-policy agent behavior. You build something on an LLM, you point Promptfoo at it, and it tries to make the thing go wrong before your users do. More than 350,000 developers use it. A quarter of Fortune 500 companies rely on it. For a two-year-old company with 11 employees, that is a remarkable footprint.

So the good news is that this capability is being taken seriously at the highest level. That is genuinely worth noting.

The reason it needs to be taken seriously at the highest level is also worth sitting with for a moment.

AI agents are now moving into real enterprise workflows. They are reading emails, drafting responses, scheduling meetings, making purchasing decisions, accessing internal databases. OpenAI’s Frontier platform, launched just last month, is built specifically for this. The promise is a more productive workplace. The surface area for something to go wrong, quietly and at scale, is something the industry is only beginning to map.

Prompt injection, which is one of the core threats Promptfoo is built to detect, is not a complicated concept but it is an uncomfortable one. It means that a malicious actor can embed instructions inside content that an AI agent reads, and the agent, unable to distinguish between data and commands the way a human instinctively does, follows them. An AI coworker processing a vendor invoice that contains hidden instructions is not a hypothetical. It is a documented class of attack that becomes more consequential the more access the agent has.

The deeper thing, the one that does not make it into most coverage of this acquisition, is that we are not just talking about external attacks. We are also talking about what happens when the system gets something wrong and neither the user nor the organization notices in time. An agent that confidently produces an incorrect output, then acts on it, then logs it for compliance, is a different kind of problem than a hacked system. It is subtler. It compounds. The error does not look like an error.

Webster, Promptfoo’s CEO, put it plainly in his announcement: adversarial tests for security, safety, and behavioral risks turned out to be the biggest blockers to actually shipping AI in enterprise environments. Not the models. Not the cost. The question of what the thing will do when reality gets complicated.

OpenAI acquiring the company that surfaces that question is not a coincidence. It is a signal that the answer is harder than the demos suggest.

Promptfoo will stay open source, OpenAI has committed to that. Whether that commitment holds as Frontier’s commercial roadmap develops is a question 130,000 active monthly users will be watching with some attention.

For now, the acquisition makes sense on every level. The capability is real, the need is real, and the timing tracks with where enterprise AI deployment actually is, which is somewhere between excited and quietly nervous.

That second part is appropriate. It means people are paying attention.

Meta

Meta Delays Launch of New ‘Avocado’ AI Model

Meta Delays Launch of New ‘Avocado’ AI Model

Meta is delaying Avocado, its next flagship AI model, after internal benchmarks came back uncomfortable. The model, originally expected earlier this year, is now pushed to at least May.

It did not outperform Google’s Gemini 3. It trails leading models from OpenAI and Anthropic. It did beat Gemini 2.5 and improved on Llama 4, which is something, though not the kind of something you lead a press release with.

In response, Meta’s senior leadership is reportedly exploring licensing Gemini models from Google to keep Meta AI competitive across Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp while internal development catches up. Apple already did something similar, paying roughly a billion dollars to integrate Gemini into Siri. So there is precedent. Still, the image of two of the world’s largest technology companies licensing their AI brains from a third is worth pausing on.

The model itself, Avocado, comes out of Meta’s newly formed Superintelligence Labs, led by Alexandr Wang, whose company Scale AI Meta acquired last year for $14.5 billion. It is designed for logical reasoning, software development, and agentic behavior, meaning it is meant to plan and execute tasks across multiple steps autonomously. Meta is spending between $115 billion and $135 billion on AI infrastructure this year. That number is not a typo.

So we have a company spending at a scale almost impossible to conceptualize, building toward a model it had to delay, potentially filling the gap by licensing from a competitor. The honest question this raises is not about Avocado specifically.

It is about what all of this is starting to look like.

SaaS, at its peak, worked on a simple premise. Big companies built software, smaller companies and enterprises paid monthly to use it, and the value was in the product being better than whatever you could build yourself. The switching costs were real, the integrations ran deep, and the recurring revenue was extraordinarily predictable. Salesforce, Workday, ServiceNow. The model printed money for two decades.

AI is replicating that architecture almost beat for beat, except the product is not software anymore. It is intelligence. OpenAI has a subscription. Anthropic has a subscription. Google has a subscription. Meta wants one too. The enterprise deals, the partner networks, the platform integrations, the certifications for implementation consultants. If you squint, it is SaaS with a different name on the door and a much larger infrastructure bill.

The difference, and it matters, is that in SaaS the product mostly stayed where you put it. An AI model that is behind the competition is a much more immediately felt problem because the user knows. They have used something better. They will go find it again. The switching cost that protected SaaS incumbents for years is much thinner here because the interface is often just a text box and the alternative is one tab away.

This is what Meta’s delay actually tells us. In a world where the product is intelligence, being second is a real problem in a way it was not when the product was a feature set that took months to migrate away from. The benchmarks that came back short on Avocado are not just an engineering setback. They are a user retention problem, a distribution problem, and a positioning problem, all arriving at the same time.

Meta has the infrastructure spend to fix the engineering part. The rest of it is harder to budget for.

Whether these companies have thought carefully enough about what it means to be in a subscription business where the customer can feel, in real time, whether what they are paying for is good enough, is the question we keep coming back to.

SaaS companies spent years making it hard to leave. AI companies are making it very easy to compare. That is a different game entirely.

Google

Expanding Chrome’s AI experiences to India, New Zealand and Canada

Expanding Chrome’s AI experiences to India, New Zealand and Canada

So Chrome is getting smarter. Or at least, that is what Google announced this week.

Gemini is now baked into Chrome for users in India, New Zealand, and Canada. You can summarize tabs, compare products across sites, transform images, draft emails without leaving your current page, and get the key points of a YouTube video without watching it. Fifty-plus languages, including Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, and six others. Built on Gemini 2.0. Available on desktop and iOS.

It sounds genuinely useful. Some of it probably is.

But before we get into what this means, a quick correction to the record: Google did not come up with this. Perplexity built an AI-native browser before Google reoriented Chrome around Gemini. The idea of a browser that does not just retrieve but processes, summarizes, and responds was Perplexity’s bet when it was still a risky one. Google, as is tradition, waited, watched, and then shipped it to two billion users. We are not saying this to be contrarian. We are saying it because the press cycle around this announcement will almost certainly not mention it, and you deserve the full picture.

Now, the thing that actually keeps us up at night.

Google describes this as helping people “seek and understand information.” There is a chemistry paper that is too long? Gemini digests it. Eight holiday tabs open? Consolidated into one view. A YouTube video you do not have time to watch? Here are the key points.

Here is the honest question worth sitting with: when did the friction of reading become the enemy?

Forming an opinion about something difficult, following a source back to where it came from, noticing the detail that does not quite fit the headline, that is not the slow, annoying part of getting informed. That is the getting informed part. A summary, however accurate, is still someone else’s compression. In this case, it is Google’s.

For users in India, that matters more than the announcement lets on. India has over 600 million internet users, many of whom are navigating an already complicated information environment. Slipping an AI summarization layer between a person and a source, before they even reach it, is not a neutral act. It is a quiet editorial decision made by a model that cannot be questioned, appealed, or held accountable. The user does not see what was left out. Neither do we.

Google’s security section in the announcement addresses prompt injection and email confirmation steps. Fine. But the more uncomfortable security question is what happens when the AI is confidently wrong, at scale, across 50 languages. That one did not make the blog post.

None of this is to say Chrome’s expansion is bad. Some of it will save people real time on things that genuinely do not require deep reading. Nobody needs to slowly digest a returns policy.

But there is a difference between a browser that helps you read and a browser that reads for you. Chrome is moving, steadily, toward the second thing. Perplexity went there first. Google is going there bigger. And the question of whether people on the other side of that shift are actually better informed, or just faster, is one neither company has seriously tried to answer.

Worth asking, before we all get too comfortable with the side panel.