Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stadia died because no one trusts Google

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 626 posts

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#221

Post by ezconnect »

utopcell wrote: post #190
h0l0cube wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a gamer, I think Stadia failed because the system they created doesn't make sense. Google, Facebook, etc. are victims of early success. They made their billions on low hanging fruit, by throwing a lot of resources at problems with very high demand for a solution that weren't yet tackled well (e.g. query the internet, keep in touch with friends). So it's no wonder that in this day in age they are incapable of und…

Low hanging fruit ? There were 10 search engines when Google launched, and a megalith called Yahoo dominating the Internet.

There were no real search engine back then. Those sites were just curated list of websites. Google was the first one to crawl the whole web and made it possible to find them.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#222

Post by gumby »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #76
mkl wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#3, it seems [1], but less than a third the size of AWS and less than half of Azure. [1] https://www.capacitymedia.com/article/2afswwuvis94wy12r320w/... , https://www.ciodive.com/news/aws-microsoft-google-cloud-mark...

Cloud is bigger than Azure. "Azure" includes Office 365 so MSFT can pretend Azure is 3x bigger than it is: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.techtarget.com/searchcloudc...

I believe “Azure” includes simply hosting some ppl’s legacy systems in dedicated servers (a State Farm no longer has to have sysadmins or hardware on its balance sheet) and even “on prem azure” which is…you still have your own computers!

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#223

Post by HWR_14 »

WalterBright wrote: post #148

Gaming is such a highly competitive market, I wouldn't try breaking into it unless I had something revolutionary, like Myst and DOOM were when they appeared.

Microsoft threw billions at it and became the third player. Sony also threw tons of money at it and succeeded. You don't need revolutionary ideas as a hardware publisher, you need the willingness to lose money for a long time to get a foothold.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#224

Post by gumby »

mkl wrote: post #35
gumby wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google’s, what, like #4 or #5 in cloud computing? And in a market where #1 has something like a third of the entire market. Doesn’t look good.

#3, it seems [1], but less than a third the size of AWS and less than half of Azure. [1] https://www.capacitymedia.com/article/2afswwuvis94wy12r320w/... , https://www.ciodive.com/news/aws-microsoft-google-cloud-mark...

Huh. When I cared about these numbers a couple of years ago it looked like Alibaba and Oracle(!) we’re ahead but I guess that 2Bn they G poured into their cloud biz got them…something. Wow, 10% of the market.

I wonder if anyone other than AWS is making money in this space. It reminds me of the phone space with one or two winners and everyone else bleeding out.

Surprised alibaba isn’t bigger TBH.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#225

Post by a1371 »

I'm sure there are some managers at Google who are patting each other on the back reciting "fail fast fail often" boasting about how much they learned launching Stadia, and looking for the next thing because Google should not be bogged down with things that don't turn the world upside down.

I don't think Google should become a maintenance company and I understand what the sunk cost fallacy is but I must ask...

Did no one at Google find the grit to ask for more money and try new things? They understand that we have stopped believing in their new products because they display no belief in those themselves, right?

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#226

Post by rippercushions »

ezconnect wrote: post #221
utopcell wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low hanging fruit ? There were 10 search engines when Google launched, and a megalith called Yahoo dominating the Internet.

There were no real search engine back then. Those sites were just curated list of websites. Google was the first one to crawl the whole web and made it possible to find them.

Uhh, no, Altavista was the dominant player before Google and it had plenty of competition. Google's key innovations were leveraging PageRank to extract signal from what other webpages were saying, instead of relying on naive keyword search etc, and then figuring out a way to monetize search with targeted keyword ads when Yahoo and co were stuck with banner impressions.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#227

Post by Dalewyn »

teaearlgraycold wrote: post #215
adrr wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to pretty naive to not realize that Google could flip directions any day. Look what happened to Nest? They went from being apart of Google, getting kicked out, and back to being apart of Google in a short time frame. Or the pixel that went from being a flagship phone to being a mid tier phone and then back to a flagship phone in a 3 year period. There’s more examples like Google fiber which stopped expanding…

They do have video streaming down. YouTube is still a great product IMO.

Youtube is not great by any objective measure, but they are the only worthwhile player in town.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#228

Post by jjav »

klodolph wrote: post #74
_zgx0 wrote: post #66

I feel like some of these perspectives are very tech industry focused rather than gamer focused. As a gamer, I think Stadia failed because the system they created doesn't make sense. You had to buy games at real $40-$60 prices but you could only play them through this limited service. I don't think anyone wants that. Compare that to paying the same price for a regular PC game which you can play via streaming using a…

I think the idea is that while you still pay $60 for the game, you don’t pay $400 for the console.

> I think the idea is that while you still pay $60 for the game, you don’t pay $400 for the console.

But you own the console for life, whereas a game on Stadia is known to disappear at any moment (because we know google will drop it).

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#229

Post by londons_explore »

copperx wrote: post #117
HungSu wrote: post #99

As Google Stadia's target user, in my opinion a stronger reason Stadia died is because GeForce Now was a competing and better product. GeForce Now allowed me to play the games I already own with a more powerful machine than I could buy myself, for just $10/month. Artifacts were noticeable but not enough for me to care. If I bought my own gaming PC later, I would be able to continue playing the game there. GeForce Now…

> Google made no attempt to be better than the competition. It's like they're unaware of anything other than themselves. This is the curse of Google products. They don't care about what the competion is doing.

They do care what the competition is doing, but the company is such a large and slow machine that it takes them many years to change course even slightly. that means when they see their competition doing something new and innovative, it takes many years to even get to the same point.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#230

Post by rippercushions »

manicdee wrote: post #50
aeturnum wrote: post #14

The thing that I find odd about Google is that it feels like they drink their own coolaid. Reports I've seen suggest that nearly no one knew this was coming. Teams who have been working on ports for months were blind-sided. Employees generally did not know. It just seems like a very poor way to run a business. It feels sloppy and needlessly messy. Especially when providing soft landings is so possible for a company w…

Reader, Wave, G+, Hangouts, Stadia and soon RCS. Never build a business on a Google project, only ever use Google as a side hustle.

RCS is a failed telco standard, not a Google invention, and Apple refusing to adopt it is probably the single biggest reason it never took off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services

Post reply on HN