Look out, Otter! Google Meet is adding in-person transcription

This is less a software-feature story than a distribution shock: Google is turning transcription from a vertical app into a bundle item inside an ecosystem with default placement on billions of devices. That creates a classic compression dynamic where standalone vendors lose pricing power first, then usage frequency, then retention, because the marginal cost of “good enough” is effectively subsidized by a broader subscription. The market is likely underestimating how quickly enterprise buyers will trial this for low-compliance workflows, then expand it horizontally across teams if the output is accurate enough.

The second-order winner is Google’s paid workspace stack, not necessarily the consumer-facing note-taking layer. Adding a high-frequency utility raises switching costs and improves seat stickiness, which can increase net revenue retention even if the feature itself is not a direct profit center. It also strengthens Google’s AI narrative versus Microsoft by making Gemini feel embedded in a workflow rather than an abstract model layer.

For Garmin, the read-through is subtler but negative over years rather than days: the more Google normalizes ambient capture and voice-to-structured-data on phones, the more consumers tolerate replacing dedicated single-purpose devices with software-first workflows. That does not hit core navigation overnight, but it reinforces a long-running substitution trend that could slow premium device attach rates and weaken feature-based differentiation. The risk to the bear case is that regulated or high-reliability use cases remain sticky, limiting the share of TAM exposed to commoditization.

The key catalyst path is adoption velocity inside Google Workspace over the next 2–4 quarters. If usage lifts and pricing stays bundled, standalone transcription names may see multiple compression before revenue deterioration shows up in the numbers. The contrarian view is that accuracy, enterprise compliance, and meeting-platform integration are still the moat; if Google’s output is only marginally better than free alternatives, the disruption may be more headline than economics.