611–620 of 626 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been trying to press that button for my own Google Apps account. It simply doesn't work.
It only works if you originally had the lifetime free apps for your domain, and you haven't transitioned to another offering already. If you did, then you have to contact support to transition back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Streaming works for movies and TV, it will work for games. Latency isn't an issue for movies or TV. Streaming will never work for games in the same way playing a game locally does.
Streaming RTS games is virtually indistinguishable from playing locally, except for lack of fan noise and constant need of needing to patch. There are tons of games that stream well, just not twitchy games.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A new search engine now has to compete with global network effects, orders of magnitudes more data, Android, and a complex web of interconnected functionality. 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 c…
What alternative search engine which isn't Bing (including DuckDuckGo) have you used recently? They do exist, have you heard of any of them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What alternative search engine which isn't Bing (including DuckDuckGo) have you used recently? They do exist, have you heard of any of them?
We're growing a lot at you.com
My intention wasn't to dismiss the possibility of popular new search engines. Only to highlight that the environment is substantially more complex/challenging than in 1997.
It died because it solved the problem nobody really had. It's Startup 101. Who said hardware is the problem? Modern consoles are relatively cheap, especially considering modern $60 price tags on games. So why Stadia tried to solve that? I'm sure Google has a lot of brilliant engineers who can build a state-of-the-art streaming platform that can leverage existing Google cloud infrastructure. But that's all it is - a b…
The idea has been around for even longer. The first service I remember (and afaik they were actually the first) was onlive. Launched in 2010. They had already nailed the tech then. Latency was acceptable and so were compression artifacts. But they eventually failed and so did every other subsequent service that tried to do the same thing. Not only does it solve a problem that barely anyone has, it’s also insanely exp…
Let's assume the usage peaks on Friday eve in LA area. The LA resource pool must have enough capacity for the peak. And on Saturday early morning that usage drops almost to zero. Now we might want to reuse freed resources to serve another currently active user pool, maybe in Tokyo. But we are dealing with highly specialized cloud resources not that easily reusable. You can't use LA servers to serve users in Tokyo - the latency will be too high.
Now we need to deploy our resources near all big urban population centres for all target markets. And these resources would stay mostly unused because of the latency and usage patterns (unless we're going to mine crypto with unused GPUs). And once we move out of densely populated areas, the problem becomes bigger.
So it is really hard to see how that can be economically feasible.
They are kind of like that psychotic cat owner that refuses to get their cats fixed. They just keep having kittens and drowning them in the lake or letting them run wild because they don't want to take care of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you deleted your comment because I can’t see the context. What principle would that be?
It was using OP’s assumption about google not supporting services for long term.
If you don't think Google would support GCP long term, it wouldn't make sense to put one (and just one?) service on GCP.
I'd never, ever trust Google with something important. At some point everything closes. That being said Sadias failure was only partially the Google closure effect. It ws a terrible business model. Had they gone down a Gamepass style system it would've likely worked. But making you pay full price for a game with zero actual ownership of it, and being 100% reliant on a strong internet connection was always going to ca…
Isn't that what they did? You got a handful of games every month when you were on their Pro subscription, and I think you kept them as long as you paid your subscription.
Just they didn't have as good of offerings, cause their library was lacking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd like to get off Gmail for other reasons, but it's a pain. I used to think that, but I was actually surprised how easy it was to get off GMail. I gave Fastmail my credit card number, clicked a few buttons in their UI to get my mail transferred over, moved my MX records, and I was done. I ended up migrating contacts, too, but that was just a couple more clicks in Fastmail's UI, as they have an OAuth flow that int…
I've always used a custom domain not with google, but the reason I would find it hard to get off gmail is the list of sites that only offer a 'login with gmail' with the only alternative being 'login with facebook'. And the list is getting consistently bigger, with many developers getting in on the trend of "passwords are too risky, just let Google handle it". If there is ever a day Google turns off sso for free Gmai…
Beyond that, especially given that I assume (hope?) such sites are rare, a simple workaround would be to have a GMail account just for such signups, and set it up to forward to your main mail account hosted elsewhere. I think that's a pretty small price to pay if you really do want to get off GMail.
In my case, I still have my GSuite (or Google Workspaces or whatever they hell they're calling it now) account (really the only difference is now my MX records point somewhere else), so if I did have any sites left where I hadn't switched from Google auth to email/password auth, it would still work.