This Friday evening, I was in my usual productivity theater—tea cooling on my desk, seventeen browser tabs open, and that familiar sensation of researching everything except what I actually needed to write about.
That’s when a YouTube thumbnail caught my eye: “Google I/O 2025: Everything Changes for AI.”
I’ve been writing technical documentation for over a decade. I’ve seen plenty of “revolutionary” announcements that turned out to be incremental improvements with better marketing. But I’ve also witnessed genuine breakthroughs that actually changed how we work.
So when I saw another “everything changes” headline, I was curious but cautious. Instead of just watching the keynote, I decided to actually test these tools over the weekend with the perspective of someone who’s seen both overhyped promises and genuine innovations.
Here’s what I discovered—and where Google actually succeeded (and where they didn’t).
The Weekend That Surprised Me More Than Expected
The Google I/O 2025 announcements felt different from typical AI marketing. While some tools were catching up to existing solutions, others genuinely addressed pain points I deal with daily as a technical writer.
What Google Actually Announced (And How It Compares)
Let me cut through the keynote marketing and focus on what matters for people who write, document, and explain technical concepts:
Google I/O 2025 Tools vs. Existing Alternatives
| Google Tool | What It Does | Existing Alternative | Key Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gemini Search | AI-powered search with synthesized answers | Perplexity, ChatGPT Plus | Google's search index advantage |
| Jules | Asynchronous code review and fixes | GitHub Copilot | Background processing while you work |
| Stitch | Text-to-UI conversion | v0.dev, Figma AI | Better Figma integration |
| Meet Translation | Real-time voice translation | Microsoft Teams | Voice preservation technology |
| Gemini Live | Voice interaction with screen sharing | ChatGPT Voice | Google Workspace integration |
The pattern here isn’t just catch-up—it’s Google leveraging their existing ecosystem advantages to improve on concepts others pioneered.
Testing Reality vs. Marketing Promises
Gemini Search: Genuinely Useful, With Caveats
My first real test came when I hit a problem that had been haunting me for weeks: “Why does my Jekyll blog randomly break CSS loading on Safari but nowhere else?”
Real-World Test Scenario
Problem: Jekyll site CSS randomly fails on Safari
Typical Research Time: 2+ hours across multiple tabs
Gemini Search Result: 12 minutes with specific solution
The response was impressively comprehensive—specific Safari cache-busting techniques with a coherent troubleshooting path. I solved the issue in twelve minutes instead of my usual two-hour research odyssey.
Where Gemini Search shines: it has access to Google’s massive search index and can synthesize recent Stack Overflow discussions, GitHub issues, and blog posts that standalone AI models might miss.
“The real advantage isn’t the AI—it’s having AI with access to Google’s entire search infrastructure. That’s a game-changer for technical research.”
The limitation: for highly specialized technical queries about niche frameworks or enterprise tools, it still defaults to generic advice. Perplexity often provides more focused answers for complex development questions.
Jules: Surprisingly Effective for Async Work
Later that evening, I dug up an old Python script I’d abandoned—one of those “I’ll fix this later” projects that had been gathering digital dust for eight months. It was a documentation generator with broken imports, inconsistent formatting, and logic that made sense only to my past self.
I fed the code to Jules and went to watch Indian Premier League (IPL).
Jules Code Review Results
Before (Broken Script)
- ❌ 3 import errors
- ❌ Inconsistent formatting
- ❌ No documentation
- ❌ Unclear variable names
After (Jules Processing)
- ✅ All imports fixed
- ✅ PEP8 compliant formatting
- ✅ Comprehensive comments added
- ✅ Regex patterns explained
When I returned, Jules had fixed the syntax errors and added meaningful comments explaining the regex patterns I’d forgotten. The asynchronous aspect is genuinely valuable—I can submit code cleanup tasks and continue writing while Jules works in the background.
Where Jules excels: handling routine code maintenance that doesn’t require real-time collaboration. It’s particularly good at adding documentation to existing code.
“It’s like having a patient colleague who actually enjoys cleaning up messy code while you focus on the interesting problems.”
The trade-off: GitHub Copilot provides better real-time suggestions while coding, but Jules handles the tedious cleanup work that you don’t want to do interactively.
Stitch: Surprisingly Practical for Documentation
For years, I’ve struggled with creating interactive examples that don’t look outdated. I decided to test Stitch with a practical request: “Create a responsive documentation sidebar with search, collapsible sections, and dark mode toggle.”
Thirty minutes later, I had working HTML, CSS, and a Figma export. The code was clean, modern, and actually worked across devices.
The integration challenge: adapting the generated code to work with existing CSS frameworks and brand guidelines took additional time. But the starting point was significantly better than manually coding from scratch.
Where Stitch works well: rapid prototyping of documentation layouts and creating standalone examples. The Figma integration is particularly smooth.
What Actually Changed in My Daily Workflow
After a weekend of testing, here’s what I may incorporate into my regular documentation routine:
-
Research Efficiency: Gemini Search complements rather than replaces my existing tools. It’s particularly useful for broad technical questions where Google’s search advantage provides more comprehensive context.
-
Code Maintenance: Jules handles background cleanup tasks effectively. I can submit old scripts for improvement while focusing on writing, then review the results later.
-
Design Prototyping: Stitch accelerated my mockup process significantly. While I still need to adapt outputs for production use, the starting point is much stronger.
-
Global Content Possibilities: The translation tools aren’t production-ready yet, but they show promising directions for multilingual documentation workflows.
The Honest Limitations
These tools have real constraints worth understanding:
Learning Curve
Each tool requires understanding its strengths and limitations. Jules works well for certain types of code but struggles with others.
Ecosystem Lock-in
Google's tools work best within Google's ecosystem. Benefits diminish if you're using other platforms.
Subscription Costs
AI Pro costs $20/month on top of existing tools. Value depends on your Google Workspace usage.
Enterprise Reality
Adoption requires convincing multiple stakeholders and navigating procurement processes.
With all kinds of Job losses who will actually be paying up for all these subscriptions?
The Bigger Picture for Technical Writers
What impressed me most was how these tools work together within Google’s ecosystem. Rather than revolutionary individual features, Google created an integrated experience that reduces friction across common documentation workflows.
The honest assessment: these tools represent solid evolutionary improvements rather than revolutionary breakthroughs. They’re particularly valuable if you’re already invested in Google Workspace and want tighter integration across your workflow.
For technical writers using other ecosystems, the benefits are more modest. The tools work but don’t provide compelling reasons to switch from established alternatives like GitHub Copilot, Perplexity, or Figma’s existing AI features.
What This Means for Your Monday Morning
If you’re a technical writer or someone who regularly explains complex concepts, these tools offer practical improvements with realistic limitations.
The work evolves rather than disappears. Instead of spending time on routine research and code cleanup, you focus on strategy, user experience, and complex problem-solving that requires human insight.
The tools that proved most valuable weren’t the flashiest announcements—they were the ones that quietly eliminated friction from tasks I do regularly. Google’s advantage lies in integration rather than individual feature innovation.
And perhaps that’s enough. Sometimes incremental improvements that work reliably are more valuable than revolutionary features that require constant workarounds.
Ready to test these tools yourself?
Most are available with a standard Google account, though the advanced features require subscriptions that may or may not be worth it depending on your existing tool stack.
The question isn’t whether AI will change technical writing—it already has. The question is whether Google’s integrated approach provides enough value to justify adoption alongside or instead of the tools you’re currently using.
Join the Discussion