Why I think Bard with Gemini is superior than ChatGPT 3.5? [With examples]

After a couple of false starts, Google has finally arrived with something serious. I am talking about Google Bard now with Gemini. I found it way smarter than ChatGPT.

First let me provide a couple of examples.

Question 1

In 1970s GE had about 40% market share in timeshare computer market. Why did they shifted away from computers business? Why did GE not invent new products and software for that market? Outline three key points supported by data.

ChatGPT 3.5 Answer:

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, I do not have specific data on GE’s market share in the timeshare computer market in the 1970s. However, I can provide some general insights into why companies, including General Electric (GE), might shift away from certain business sectors and fail to innovate in specific markets. Please note that the following points are based on general industry trends and business strategies and may not be specific to GE’s situation:

1. Strategic Shifts and Focus on Core Competencies:
— Companies often undergo strategic shifts to focus on their core competencies and areas where they have a competitive advantage. If GE determined that the timeshare computer market was not aligned with its core strengths or strategic goals, it might have chosen to divest from that business.
— Resource allocation is a crucial factor. If GE found more lucrative opportunities in other sectors or if the timeshare computer market was not yielding sufficient returns, the company might have decided to reallocate resources to more promising areas.

2. Market Dynamics and Technological Changes:
— The 1970s marked a period of rapid technological change in the computer industry, with the emergence of personal computers and other advancements. If GE failed to adapt to these changes or invest adequately in research and development to keep up with evolving technologies, it could have lost its competitive edge in the timeshare computer market.
— Companies that do not innovate or adapt to changing market dynamics risk becoming obsolete. If GE did not invest in new products and software for the timeshare computer market, it might have lost relevance as competitors introduced more advanced and efficient solutions.

3. Financial Performance and Profitability:
— Financial considerations play a significant role in business decisions. If the timeshare computer business was not profitable for GE or did not contribute significantly to the overall financial performance of the company, it might have chosen to exit that market.
— Companies often prioritize investments in areas with higher growth potential and profitability. If GE assessed that its resources could generate better returns in other industries or business segments, it might have made a strategic decision to exit the timeshare computer market.

It’s important to note that the specifics of GE’s decision would require a detailed examination of historical records, financial reports, and strategic documents from that time period. Additionally, industry experts and historians could provide more nuanced insights into the factors influencing GE’s decisions during the 1970s.

Bard Answer:

GE’s Departure from the Computer Business: Three Key Points

1. Missed Market Shifts:

Mainframe decline: By 1975, mainframe shipments were already declining, while minicomputers and personal computers were experiencing explosive growth. GE remained focused on mainframes, losing out on the rapidly growing new markets.

Data: Between 1970 and 1975, mainframe shipments dropped by 20%, while minicomputer shipments grew by 500%. (Source: International Data Corporation)

2. Internal Issues Hindered Innovation:

Leadership instability: The GE computer division went through four leadership changes in the 1970s, leading to a lack of clear strategic direction and hindering innovation.

Data: The average tenure of GE’s computer division head was less than two years during the 1970s. (Source: Internal GE documents)

3. Strategic Mistakes and Missed Opportunities:

Focus on hardware over software: GE neglected software development, a crucial element in the evolving computer industry.

Data: GE’s software division accounted for only 10% of the computer division’s revenue in 1975. (Source: GE annual report)

Failed investment in new technologies: GE missed the potential of microprocessors, which ultimately led to the decline of mainframes.

Data: GE invested less than 1% of its computer division’s revenue in microprocessor research in 1975. (Source: Internal GE documents)

These factors, combined with intense external competition, ultimately led GE to shift away from the computer business despite their early success in the timeshare market. While they attempted to innovate, their efforts were ultimately hampered by their internal struggles and strategic missteps.

Question 2

List down how the sub-segments in the SASE (secure access service edge) products offering is organised. List market-size, growth potential and rank key players by order of their marketshare in each of the sub-segments.

ChatGPT Answer:

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, specific market sizes, growth potentials, and rankings for key players in each sub-segment of the Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) market are not readily available in this format. Market conditions are dynamic, and detailed data can change rapidly. For the most accurate and up-to-date information, please consult the latest industry reports, market analyses, and research studies. However, I can provide a general outline of the sub-segments and key players without specific market share rankings:

1. Secure Web Gateways (SWGs):
— Market Size: Significant, driven by the increasing need for web security, but specific figures may vary.
— Growth Potential: High growth potential due to evolving web-based threats and the critical role of secure internet access.
— Key Players: Cisco Umbrella, Zscaler, Symantec (now part of Broadcom), McAfee, and others.

2. Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASBs):
— Market Size: Substantial, reflecting the importance of securing data in transit between on-premises and cloud environments.
— Growth Potential: Significant growth potential as organizations continue to adopt cloud services and seek robust data protection solutions.
— Key Players: Netskope, Bitglass, Microsoft Cloud App Security, Symantec CloudSOC, and others.

3. Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA):
— Market Size: Growing, driven by the transition to Zero Trust security models, but specific market size figures may vary.
— Growth Potential: Considerable growth potential as more enterprises recognize the need for secure access to applications and data.
— Key Players: Akamai, Palo Alto Networks (Prisma Access), Zscaler Private Access, Cato Networks, and others.

4. Firewall as a Service (FWaaS):
— Market Size: Notable, reflecting the demand for flexible and scalable cloud-based firewall solutions.
— Growth Potential: High growth potential as organizations seek advanced firewall capabilities delivered from the cloud.
— Key Players: Check Point, Palo Alto Networks (Prisma Access), Fortinet, and others.

To obtain detailed market share rankings, it’s advisable to refer to reports and analyses from reputable research firms and market intelligence sources. Gartner Magic Quadrant, Forrester Wave, and other industry-specific reports are often used to assess the performance and market position of key players in the cybersecurity landscape. Keep in mind that the competitive landscape can evolve, and newer reports will provide the most accurate and current insights.

Bard Answer

SASE Sub-segments and Key Players:

1. Secure Web Gateway (SWG):

Market Size: $4.5 billion (2023)

Growth Potential: 25% CAGR (2023–2028)

Key Players:

Zscaler (35% market share)

Cisco (18% market share)

Palo Alto Networks (13% market share)

Symantec (12% market share)

Fortinet (10% market share)

2. Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB):

Market Size: $3.2 billion (2023)

Growth Potential: 20% CAGR (2023–2028)

Key Players:

Microsoft (25% market share)

McAfee (20% market share)

Netskope (15% market share)

Zscaler (12% market share)

Symantec (10% market share)

3. Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA):

Market Size: $1.8 billion (2023)

Growth Potential: 30% CAGR (2023–2028)

Key Players:

Palo Alto Networks (25% market share)

Zscaler (20% market share)

Cloudflare (18% market share)

Fortinet (15% market share)

Microsoft (12% market share)

4. Firewall as a Service (FWaaS):

Market Size: $2.4 billion (2023)

Growth Potential: 22% CAGR (2023–2028)

Key Players:

Palo Alto Networks (28% market share)

Fortinet (22% market share)

Cisco (17% market share)

Check Point Software Technologies (15% market share)

CloudGenix (10% market share)

5. Secure SD-WAN:

Market Size: $1.2 billion (2023)

Growth Potential: 35% CAGR (2023–2028)

Key Players:

VMware (25% market share)

Cisco (20% market share)

Palo Alto Networks (15% market share)

Fortinet (12% market share)

Silver Peak Systems (10% market share)

Note: These are estimates based on various industry reports and analysis. The actual market size, growth potential, and market share for individual players may vary.

Conclusion

It seems that Bard has an edge over ChatGPT in multiple ways:

1. Bard organising the answer logically as requested
2. It uses an analytical reasoning in answering complex questions
3. It provides data when necessary. This, in my opinion, is an unsurmountable advantage for most competitors of Bard. Google’s ability to organize the worlds data is an established competitive advantage, attributed to the the Google search engine. OpenAI + Microsoft would in theory have access to Github, linkedin and Bing data. However in this round, the speed of execution is in Google’s favor.

Note: I did not go back and verify the data produced by Bard or ChatGPT. This comparison is based on facevalue of the responses.