My view on the criticisms that Gemini has been receiving since mid-May (launch 3.5 flash)
I've seen many people disregarding any criticism of Gemini as if it were just "hatred" or lack of ability to write prompts. But honestly, this explanation doesn't make sense.
If a person has been using Gemini for months, developed a workflow, learned how the model responds, and suddenly, after an update, notices a drop in quality, he has every right to complain. This is even more true for those who pay for the service.
The argument that "the problem is your prompt" ignores a very simple fact: if the same prompt worked consistently before the update and now produces worse responses, there has been a change in the behavior of the model. It is not reasonable to automatically blame the user.
What makes these criticisms more relevant is that many users are not complaining about a single thing. They are describing similar patterns: loss of context in long conversations, the need to repeat information that had already been memorized, more superficial answers to complex questions, worse programming performance in certain cases, more refusals in legitimate requests, behavioral changes that made the results less predictable, and the feeling that the model began to "think less" before responding.
When many people independently point out the same types of regression, it deserves to be taken seriously.
Another point that generated a lot of frustration was the issue of usage limits. Many subscribers hired the service expecting a certain usability and, after the changes, began to find more restrictive or less predictable limits. For those who depend on the tool to work, study or program for hours, this represents an important change in the experience with the product.
No software is immune to regressions. This happens with operating systems, browsers, applications, games and also with AI models. Updates can fix problems and introduce others. This is part of software development.
I also see people saying "in my account it's perfect". Great. But this does not invalidate the experience of those who noticed a worsening. Users use Gemini in very different ways. An update can benefit certain use cases and harm others.
Another frequent argument is that "those who complain should learn to write prompts". But this reasoning ignores a fundamental point: if a user already mastered the tool and obtained excellent results before the update, it is natural to expect this level of performance to continue. If there was a regression, it is legitimate to question it.
Those who pay for a service are not just buying access; they are buying an experience. When this experience worsens, the customer has every right to demand improvements. This is not "crying". It's exactly the kind of feedback that companies need to receive to evolve their products.
In my opinion, these complaints will not disappear as long as many users continue to feel that Gemini no longer offers the quality they paid for and were used to. On the contrary: they will probably continue until the product returns to offer a performance that meets the expectations of those who use it daily.
In the end, reasoned criticism does not harm a product. They help identify regressions and direct improvements.
What doesn't help is to discard all criticism saying that "the prompt is wrong" or that "the problem is the user". If a significant number of people started reporting similar problems after an update, it's more worth investigating these complaints than simply assuming that everyone unlearned how to use the tool overnight.