271–280 of 1001 posts
Just a couple of months ago. "Stadia is not shutting down. Rest assured we're always working on bringing more great games to the platform and Stadia Pro." https://twitter.com/GoogleStadia/status/1552989433590214656
In the UK, you know a minister will be sacked soon when the Prime Minister publicly announced they "have her full confidence"...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, I bet if that Stadia would've done much better if it had launched with the promise of "if we do shut it down, we'll refund all your purchases"
That's a promise you can only keep if almost no one buys anything, though. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bit of a conundrum: every company is going to shut down products. What's the best way to launch new, risky things? Startups can simply go all in on the product, and if it fails, the company dissolves, though people rightly are hesitant to go with a fly by night startup for exactly that reason. I'm not even sure that Google has shut down more products than an equivalently sized company. But it's certainly shut…
> I'm not even sure that Google has shut down more products than an equivalently sized company. AWS has shut down I believe only one service in its entire existence (SDB). And only when they had a viable alternative (DynamoDB) and helped their biggest users make the move. I can't recall any Apple service that has been shut down without an alternative. They've certainly cancelled hardware programs, but that doesn't br…
I can think of an esoteric one that no one misses: Ping (their music-based social media network)
I was expecting there to be some satisfaction at this news as I (and many others clearly from the comments) predicted this would happen. But honestly it just feels kind of sad at this point. Google used to be, at least from an outside perspective, one of the most innovative and forward thinking companies, constantly releasing new and interesting products. Not everything was good, of course, but I was always eager to…
The reality is streaming is the future of gaming for a huge number of gamers. Stadia's business model would have never worked out but the tech does works. Stadia was always going to run into the problem Netflix is going through now, the big IP holders will create their own streaming platforms rather then sharing the revenue with a third party.
"A huge number," maybe, in the sense that the majority of the world's gamers today only play games on their phone, but not the ones spending the most money. People who will pay extra for 144hz 4K monitors or multi-rollover keyboards with obnoxious lighting aren't going to throw the benefit of those things away for a platform that introduces 100-200ms of lag in the game and creates fuzzier graphics than the graphics c…
Console gaming have been introducing 100-200ms of lag [1] and fuzzier graphics for almost two decades.
Streaming is a huge win for the big publishers, they hate the lost of control and maintenance pc gaming requires. At some point one of them will launch their latest must play title as streaming only and the gamers who want to play it won't have a choice.
[1] https://displaylag.com/console-latency-exploring-video-game-...
Google's reputation for not supporting things long term is finally starting to affect them in noticeable ways. Developers didn't onboard because they were afraid it would get shut down. It got shut down because no one onboarded.
Google's reputation for not supporting things long term is finally starting to affect them in noticeable ways. Developers didn't onboard because they were afraid it would get shut down. It got shut down because no one onboarded.
It's a bit of a conundrum: every company is going to shut down products. What's the best way to launch new, risky things? Startups can simply go all in on the product, and if it fails, the company dissolves, though people rightly are hesitant to go with a fly by night startup for exactly that reason. I'm not even sure that Google has shut down more products than an equivalently sized company. But it's certainly shut…
On one hand, the distribution power makes it extremely easy for new products to get lots and lots of users really quickly. On the other hand, it can give a false sense of security when it comes to product-market fit.
The only real solution I can think of is deliberately launching new products without the Google branding and without relying on the built-in distribution channels, working towards product market fit the hard way, and only after that should they consider taking advantage of Google's distribution power to accelerate growth.
Google's reputation for not supporting things long term is finally starting to affect them in noticeable ways. Developers didn't onboard because they were afraid it would get shut down. It got shut down because no one onboarded.
This is keeping me from looking seriously at Flutter tbh. Go is safe, it has a community and ecosystem outside of Google, Flutter doesn't seem to be there yet.
Projects that make it big from within Google need to find shelter from this perception by moving into community driven project governance, for better or worse.
Google's product strategy.. Google: We're going to launch a fancy new product in an already-crowded field, not market it at all, and everyone will jump on board and love it! Everyone else: No way, it's a PITA to port to, and knowing Google, they're going to sunset it soon. Google: No we won't, we're fully dedicated to this thing Everyone else: No way, they haven't added meaningful features in years and they're going…
I noticed that too. Google never adversises its producta. Google is almost like the startup founder who thinks their side project is so good it doesn't need marketing or sales.
I know 10 or so other companies that shouldn’t own the game streaming market either, but being dedicated game distributors themselves, collectively they’re far more deserving than some ambiguous tech conglomerate.