Don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash

26 points | by NickDob an hour ago

14 comments

  • segmondy 16 minutes ago

    This is the problem with cloud models, you build a "predictable" workflow then they remove it with a new and improved one that is less deterministic and often costs more. If you use a local model discontinuation is no longer a thing to worry about.

  • hrpnk 14 minutes ago

    I love how there is a "Please do not discontinue gemini-2.0-flash[-lite], 2.5 is NOT an equivalent" from Feb 20th. Getting too attached to models is a smell.

      all2 a minute ago

      That's like saying 'getting attached to locked dependencies for your app is a smell'.

      But this could be framed as 'getting attached to an API revision when a new one is available'...

      I can see it both ways, tbh.

        bigyabai a few seconds ago

        If your locked dependency is someone else's API, then yeah it's a smell.

  • _doctor_love 7 minutes ago

    Agree with the observation others have made. The only true solve if a specific model version is critical to your application or workflow, you need to host the model yourself so you have control over it. You don't want to be stuck getting rug-pulled by a model provider.

    And as another commenter pointed out - in particular for Google of all companies - expect that the rug pull can and will happen. They're not known for keep anything around for very long.

  • leumon 12 minutes ago

    If they don't want to host it maybe they could open source it. This would probably be a win-win situation.

  • ioreader 10 minutes ago

    Yes, Gemini 2.5 Flash is well balanced model that meets sweet spot of price vs performance trade-off which is good enough for non-reasoning tasks and offer at competitive price.

  • kilroy123 23 minutes ago

    UGH why are they killing this model? This is one of the best models you can use in an API for a large swath of tasks. It's kind of the perfect trifecta of fast, cheap, and smart enough.

    Why does Google constantly kill off good things?

      cyanydeez 15 minutes ago

      because they keep these models loaded, and they can't just arbitrarily load up whatever models you want.

      but it's more likely just a business case: they need you buying higher tier model output. They know whose doing what, so someone needs their 3Q bonus.

        Wowfunhappy 3 minutes ago

        I was going to reply that Anthropic, which supposedly is the most capacity constrained of the leading AI labs, still provides access to models as old as Opus 3.

        But then I realized Opus 3 is an outlier, and Anthropic has removed access to models newer than that one. https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/model-depre...

        I wonder what the deal with Opus 3 is.

  • mips_avatar 40 minutes ago

    It's such a good model for the price, for a lot of tasks it outperforms gpt5 at 3x the speed and 1/5 the price. The price jump from 2.5->3->3.5 has been so high.

  • lostmsu 25 minutes ago

    Can't run Qwen 3.6 35B A3B? Even Qwen 3.5 9B is comparable.

  • Hamuko 23 minutes ago

    Isn't asking Google to not discontinue a product a bit like asking the tide to not rise?

      trvz 14 minutes ago

      That, and while you’ve chained yourself to the floor of the littoral zone previously.