441–450 of 626 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got tons of downvote by saying "I would put one service on GCP just out of principle". Wow, I guess I wasn't so crazy.
I guess you deleted your comment because I can’t see the context. What principle would that be?
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…
> When you own a whole ecosystem Google virtually own Android, and yet they haven't innovated or taken the initiative in a way that Apple has. A distinction can be drawn with Apple here, as they've opened new markets by making devices that didn't exist yet (e.g., touch-driven mobile computing). They innovated from the beginning, not so much remaking Altavista with Bigtable.
I’m confused by your comment. Android pioneered a good 80% of the modern smartphone UX. Apple makes nice phones but they are pretty much always late mover.
A lot of folks point out that Stadia doesn't make sense because you'd be tied to locations with stable Internet. That wasn't suppose to be a problem anymore. Google misjudged the telcos who had promised 5G and delivered the weak, low coverage form we have today.
Had the gamble paid off, it would've been strategically perfect. Cloud-based intensive computing, which is exactly Google's forté, would've taken off and Stadia's infrastructure could've been extended beyond gaming. And the pitch would've been easy: don't buy $500 impossible-to-find consoles and $2k graphics cards. You'd also be able to play your games anywhere. Traveling for work? Log in and play on your crappy work laptop or Chromebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s pretty interesting actually you can see exactly where Elon is focusing based on what’s going on at each company. The fact that Tesla has failed to output a new car or really innovate much lately, and spacex appears to be stuck in a morass of engine troubles for their latest big rockets, tells you how much he’s taken his eye off the ball.
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…
That’s Panasonic, not Tesla. You are confused by the Tesla marketing here. Tesla makes plenty of interesting things but that’s not part of it.
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 was an early adopter of Stadia. I swapped to GeForce Now because it supported higher resolutions, had better refresh rates, and had lower latency.
The author tried to push the narrative that technically Google did well but it was other factors causing this failure. No, technically they didn’t do well either.
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…
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 whate…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, google plans projects, spins them up spending millions or billions in dev costs over multiple years, then executes the final phase of the plan and kills them. All so their hypothetical attorneys can make a hypothetical point in a hypothetical court case. Really???
Yup. Is that not what happens? Consistently?? As for the hypothetical court case. Again, there's history for that as well. What's your explanation then? The mighty Google with some of the best and brightest minds in the world...is consistently incompetent? That it goes into markets outside its core competence, dumps a ton of resources, and then again and again surrenders prematurely? Really? Seems that your theory so…