91–100 of 151 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
If this were from a startup, no one would be saying the same, but because it is Google, folks want to ride the bandwagon. Microsoft has cancelled thousands of products, but nobody says a thing. Yet the number of hardware products Google has cancelled you can count on 1 hand.
Filter Graveyard List Hardware (21)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a super fun thing to be the first person to comment about #1 on literally everything Google does, but it's silly and wrong to think that's a valid criticism. For every product Google kills, it's launched dozens of wildly successful products you've been taking for granted for over a decade in some cases: Gmail, search, Drive, Photos, Chromecast, Chrome, Books, Flights, Scholar, AdSense, Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Ke…
> For every product Google kills, it's launched dozens of wildly successful products you've been taking for granted for over a decade in some cases: Gmail, search, Drive, Photos, Chromecast, Chrome, Books, Flights, Scholar, AdSense, Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Keep, Translate, Maps... More like for every 10 products they kill they maybe let one live... Have you not seen killed by google ? > Google can and does support do…
How could one not see it, when it's spammed multiple times in any Google product announcement thread on HN? But the thing is, that site doesn't actually tell you much for two reasons.
First, the list is just crap. Here's an exercise: pick 10 random items from that list. Had you ever heard of that product, do you think it had any users? Is "killed by google"'s categorization of something having been discontinued actually legit? Was the thing they're claiming as a product even one in the first place?
Second, it doesn't actually tell us whether this level of discontinued things is actually uncommon. Do the same exercise with the same inclusion criteria on the peer companies like Amazon and Microsoft, and I bet the lists will be comparable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I say that a Magic Window in my office sounds 1000x better than a magic headset that I have to wear (Meta Quest 2)
It does. And so does a hologram. But it remains to be seen if Google can see a tech demo through, make a profitable product, and support it past the initial hype. I hope this time it does, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. And the market has a lot of products that already attempt to address that. Aside from being physically bigger and therefore more expensive, what is the value-add to this for those scenarios? We'd all love a 65" window to stay in touch with loved ones, but the price is the problem not the tech. This doesn't attempt to address the economics, and to be honest I'm not sure what is new or interesting about Starlin…
It’s not just a screen, it projects different images to your eyeballs to give the illusion of depth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Have you not seen killed by google ? Yes, we've all seen it. Honestly can we just discuss the tech for once instead of making the same comment 30 times on every Google thread? This sort of video streaming is reminiscent of the "tele-human" teleconferencing in Silicon Valley [1]. Hopefully it works better. It would be timed well as so many companies are looking at working from home right now. Though as with anything…
I’m not sure tech for tech’s sake is a good value proposition. If they were to kill this off in the year what impact did it have on the world?
I do agree about technology for technology's sake, but even in cases where the application is wrong, technologies are often repurposed. Viagra was created to treat heart disease.
The cards are definitely stacked against this when it's at Google. Because of: 1. Google's solid track record of killing things because they didn't grow quickly, after a half hearted effort. Stadia being the latest example. 2. Google being pretty bad at cracking the corporate communication space. Teams and Zoom ate its lunch. 3. Google not having a strategy behind communication tools in general. Meet, Hangouts, Chat,…
Every time a Google product release makes its way to this site, it seems as though many commenters don't read the article and instead attempt to "dunk on" Google for their history of cancelling projects, vying to express how they distrust Google because of their privacy invasiveness or their inability to commit or some anecdotal evidence dealing with support. Same with Meta products. It's an exhausting exercise to at…
I'm struggling to believe Google will see this through beyond a tech demo. And who's the target audience? I mean, what would a unit's cost be? Looks like another cool tech Google won't be able to productize successfully. Edit: I was super excited for Soli way back when, but so far haven't see any smart clothes they were imagining in the early days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not just a screen, it projects different images to your eyeballs to give the illusion of depth.
So it is a screen you have to sit in an exact arch and that costs yet even more.
If they've managed to embed the video collector at eye height or close, so the effect of looking at the screen is to be seen as looking at the other person, this is in itself useful. If it's still a non-eyeline camera and they do some adaptive smarts to make it "look" like eyeline I'd be interested how good that is. If they have leveraged peppers ghost and like techniques to make a volume appear to be "occupied" then…