491–500 of 626 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the idea is that while you still pay $60 for the game, you don’t pay $400 for the console.
Something like Shadow PC makes way more sense, and is why I choose it. It’s just a cloud PC, and even supports SteamVR.
With the associated UX of manually logging in, handling disk space, waiting for installations and updates, etc. etc. etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
My explanation is that they want to make money on these projects and immediately cancel them when they fail to meet some lofty goals. Not that these projects are from-inception used as pawns in some abstract legal posturing.
Again, see Thiel for more details.
The world uses google search and trust their email service even for their professional and civil uses, that journalist is dishonest on purpose, shame Stadia died due to: - business model - cloud only - conjuncture and anti-competitive nature of their competitors cloud gaming is 20years too early anyways, i'm not saying it's pointless, i am saying it shouldn't be your sole offering they own android and they didn't cap…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try building a search engine today. The barriers to entry are much harder. I’ve often heard the saying how “everything easy has already been invented” and that it’s so much harder today to invent new things. I think it’s a fallacy. Things were just as hard in the past. I owned an ISP in 1998 and there were plenty of search engines at the time. Google invented something unique and innovative and they were rewarded tre…
Doesn't that just prove the point though? In 1998 there were plenty of search engines and their use was distributed more evenly. The internet was still fairly new and most people weren't online yet. It certainly wasn't an integral part of most people's life. Google came along and improved on the existing search engines and in doing so wiped out a lot of that competition, becoming what they are today. A new search eng…
Are you a pessimist in life? You’re focusing on only the negative aspects of starting a search engine today.
24 years after Google was formed we have orders of magnitude cheaper processing, orders of magnitude better AI, the ability to start small with cloud computing and work your way up from there. We have 24 years of search engine research to a large extent publicly available.
I really think all this “things would’ve been so much easier back then” are simply excuses as to why someone can’t do something today.
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...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong but you're simply describing Apple's business model. Take technology that has matured and do it well. If you ask me, Apple's main innovation with the iPhone was making the UI usable with just a finger instead of a stylus.
There were a lot of naysayers at the time around doing away with a physical keyboard led by all the Blackberry speed thumb typists. The criticisms weren't even wrong per se but they ultimately didn't win out against the tradeoffs--which were certainly aided by the maligned but very necessary aggressive autocorrect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> Google virtually own Android, and yet they haven't innovated or taken the initiative in a way that Apple has. 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.
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…
> They literally turned into a battery company with their own batteries, their own chemistry and their own end to end manufacturing process. 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.
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…
- Trust from consumers - Trust (and buy-in) from game developers/publishers
Getting that trust is a long and often winding path, just look at Microsoft's track record with the Xbox. There were moments along the way where it could have all fallen apart, but at least they seem to genuinely believe in the product/platform.
I never really got that impression from Stadia, I tend to follow a lot of games media and Stadia never really got that much of a mention. That might be a fault of the outlets I follow, but you'd think Stadia PR team would be the ones out there working the circuit to drum up positive coverage.
Stadia hired Phil Harrison as the leader, he's had a long history of working in the industry, but tbh I don't think google put the resources behind him.