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

401–410 of 626 posts

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#401

Post by isbvhodnvemrwvn »

wanderlust123 wrote: post #348
chongli wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their solution was anything but, and it was truly innovative (at the time) and their success was well deserved. It was totally low hanging fruit. Try building a search engine today. The barriers to entry are much harder. Finding useful sites and filtering out spam are much more difficult now than when Google started. The signal to noise ratio on the internet has plummeted. And that is just the difficulty of building…

Do you have a link to that numerical methods class? Sounds really interesting

Power iteration of Google matrix is the concept to look up. They reduced the PageRank problem to a well known linear algebra problem with a lot of efficient libraries.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#402

Post by phpisthebest »

Retric wrote: post #371
chx wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While certainly Apple has innovated on things, you can't name anything which was not a gradual improvement but, as you say, a device that didn't exist yet. The first phone with a capacitive touch screen was the LG Prada. Of course, resistive touch screen phones existed for a long, long time before that. Sony Ericsson Liveview, MOTOACTV, the Pebble watch, even the Samsung Galaxy Gear predates the Apple Watch. As alway…

Having a capacitive touch screen wasn’t the iPhone’s innovation, touch screens date back to the 1940’s, it was the browser, UI, and business model that was innovative. That said, the LG Prada beat the iPhone to market by a month but the iPhone was in development for longer. What’s really interesting is the LG Prada II included a physical keyboard showing they where backing away from the design rather than doubling do…

>it was the browser, UI, and business model that was innovative.

You call it innovative, I call it draconian anti-consumer walled garden that needs to be eliminated

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#403

Post by TylerE »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #350
bitexploder wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam games I bought a decade ago are still in my library. Steam is trusty. Google is not.

Steam isn't perfect though. Years ago, there was a patch to a game to remove songs, presumably as a consequence of a licence issue. Obviously the disc-based console versions didn't face the same downgrade. https://www.pcgamer.com/grand-theft-auto-san-andreas-steam-u...

Why couldn’t they? Console games have had mandatory patches for years and years.

Just because it’s on the disc doesn’t mean the binary has to load it.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#404

Post by snapcaster »

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #187
ttty wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe reading real reviews from real users will help too: https://www.reddit.com/r/Stadia/comments/xsyr8x/i_am_really_...

r/nintendoswitch: 4.2m r/ps5: 2.6m r/steamdeck: 230k r/stadia: 119k What jumps out from that thread you linked is the casualness of the gamers. So not only did Google find a tiny market, but that market wasn't terribly motivated.

I disagree with this use of metric completely. I game a lot, and I own multiple devices on your list above yet subscribe to 0 of the subreddits. People subscribe to the subreddits of _games_. You didn't even count /r/nintendo instead. If anything, I think the fact that these subreddits have so many people is actually a point against what you're arguing about the size of the casual market. I do agree with you on the larger point though, stadia had no product/market fit

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#405

Post by statictype »

chongli wrote: post #343
stingraycharles wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least for Google, I don’t think you can call what they did with search low hanging fruit. Their solution was anything but, and it was truly innovative (at the time) and their success was well deserved. I do agree that they’re victims of their early success, but rather that it proves that it’s rather difficult to make multiple successful products. When you own a whole ecosystem, like Microsoft and Apple do, it make…

Their solution was anything but, and it was truly innovative (at the time) and their success was well deserved. It was totally low hanging fruit. Try building a search engine today. The barriers to entry are much harder. Finding useful sites and filtering out spam are much more difficult now than when Google started. The signal to noise ratio on the internet has plummeted. And that is just the difficulty of building…

It was totally low hanging fruit. Try building a search engine today. The barriers to entry are much harder. Finding useful sites and filtering out spam are much more difficult now than when Google started. The signal to noise ratio on the internet has plummeted.

This is what everyone thought in 1999. Search engines were a solved problem in a crowded market where there could be little room for new contender And whatever limitations we had in search were just inherent in how it all worked and we just had to deal with it.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#406

Post by sumedh »

KajMagnus wrote: post #355
chongli wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their solution was anything but, and it was truly innovative (at the time) and their success was well deserved. It was totally low hanging fruit. Try building a search engine today. The barriers to entry are much harder. Finding useful sites and filtering out spam are much more difficult now than when Google started. The signal to noise ratio on the internet has plummeted. And that is just the difficulty of building…

> implement it yourself. It’s not very difficult But that's not where others failed. Instead, it's coming up with the idea, realizing that it's a truly good idea, that was the important thing. (Remember, Yahoo and other(s) didn't want to buy Google and the algorithm, when they had the chance.) Maybe if you replace "totally low hanging fruit" , with "It was undiscovered winner-takes-it-all markets" I'd agree. In hinds…

> Remember, Yahoo and other(s) didn't want to buy Google

The big guys at that time were blinded by their own success, Google wanted users to do their search and leave the site which was completely opposite to what the Yahoo's of that day wanted to do, they wanted users to hang out on their portal.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#407

Post by MaxBarraclough »

TylerE wrote: post #403
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam isn't perfect though. Years ago, there was a patch to a game to remove songs, presumably as a consequence of a licence issue. Obviously the disc-based console versions didn't face the same downgrade. https://www.pcgamer.com/grand-theft-auto-san-andreas-steam-u...

Why couldn’t they? Console games have had mandatory patches for years and years. Just because it’s on the disc doesn’t mean the binary has to load it.

I was thinking of the PS2, but you're right, modern consoles have patches.

As for mandatory patches: you would at least have the option to play single-player offline without updating.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#408

Post by mort96 »

urthor wrote: post #65

The problem wasn't trust at all. Nobody in the gaming industry trusts anyone. Customers don't trust developers, see "never pre-order anything." Developers don't trust publishers, "executive meddling via focus groups." Publishers don't trust each other. The difference is publishers have lawyers so they write legal contracts to fix that. Google, Did, Not, Produce, The, Goods. Full-stop. Their service was light on conte…

I trust Steam or the PlayStation store that if I buy a game for $80, I can play that game for many, many years.

I wouldn't trust a Google product with the same.

Stadia was a bad product, but a lack of trust (combined with a business model which requires trust) is certainly part of it.

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#409

Post by pas »

wokwokwok wrote: post #347
pas wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

flutter may be ok, but it's again something that's hard to relate to, because it's using fuckin Dart. and artificial barrier. they should use TS. or kotlin or Swift ... or just Java. look at React. the simplest piece of shit and it's eating the world because people got into the cult of React. similarly with Go. ... streaming tech: they'll just fold it into YouTube somehow. unicorns: did they ever launch any since Gma…

Android Maps Docs Go /shrug I dunno, I think it’s fair to say they’ve had a few winners.

Okay, Drive/Docs/Photos qualifies I think. (But also fuck 'em for ruining Picasa :D) Google Workspaces has to be a money printer.

Go doesn't make them money directly. Similarly k8s is great, but doesn't make them money. (At best it's the classic commoditize your complement strategy. Though I have no idea where Go comes from. Well, I guess if you hire enough language developers you're bound to eventually get a new language, even if it's a bit meh, so they at least matched React in that.)

Re: Stadia died because no one trusts Google

#410

Post by geertj »

impossiblefork wrote: post #309
panick21_ wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but this is just outright wrong. > The fact that Tesla has failed to output a new car or really innovate much lately They literally turned into a battery company with their own batteries, their own chemistry and their own end to end manufacturing process. They are making state of the art batteries when only 5 years ago this company had never even made single high volume car. You can like or dislike FSD but…

The Gigapress is an Italian innovation though, and the Italians built it because they understood that it could be incredibly useful, not because there was a custom order. Tesla were early adopters by making use of them, but not innovators.

> Tesla were early adopters by making use of them, but not innovators.

There are two versions of the Gigapress history going around. In one version the idea came to the Idra CEO in a dream, while in the other version Elon gave multiple die casting manufacturers a call and got a hard no from everyone, expect for Idra who gave him a ‘maybe’.

Whichever it it is not that important in my view. What is undisputed is that Tesla put their money where their mouth is and took a real money bet on this new unproven technology early on. That is as much innovation as actually coming up with the machine and idea yourself.

Edit: to add to my point about innovation, from what I understand, no car company has ever used die casted parts in structural components due to concerns about internal stresses resulting from the die cast process. Normally this requires expensive post treatments but Tesla developed a custom alloy that makes this post treatment unnecessary. I am a bit light on details; someone with a metallurgy or structural engineering background pls chime in.

Post reply on HN