Ironically, if Google were upfront about how it would handle the shutdown, it likely would have increased consumer confidence enough that Stadia may not have needed to be shutdown.
Everyone already anticipates new Google services to fail. Expecting people to spend hundreds of dollars on content that is locked to a service run by a company that is known for canceling services after a couple of years was always going to fail.
Stadia was essentially just a demo of Google’s cloud capabilities. Even if Stadia was a massive success, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to Google’s ad revenue and have no impact on stock price.
I still don’t understand how Google thought it had a chance at success. They had the same model as Onlive had 10 years prior. It ended up failing for much the same reasons.
Product launches are the vehicle for attaining promotions at Google, allegedly. Maintenance does not get similarly rewarded, nor does launching projects and having them live on to actually be successful.
When the launcher got promoted and moved on, they have to figure out whether to keep the thing around, and the answer is generally going to be no since few things can really compete with the infinite money glitch that is search ads.
half-arsing a product, people are hesitant to try it, due to other killed off products, google kills product. repeat
And the more they kill the more the reputation grows
Like when stadia was announced my friends and I took bets on how long it would last or if any stadia exclusive games would ever get to launch
Ironically, if Google were upfront about how it would handle the shutdown, it likely would have increased consumer confidence enough that Stadia may not have needed to be shutdown.
Honestly yeah that probably would have been the case
But if they were open about it then it probably would have gone over poorly with the shareholders and stock value by “openly planning to fail”
Everyone already anticipates new Google services to fail. Expecting people to spend hundreds of dollars on content that is locked to a service run by a company that is known for canceling services after a couple of years was always going to fail.
Stadia was essentially just a demo of Google’s cloud capabilities. Even if Stadia was a massive success, it would still be a drop in the bucket compared to Google’s ad revenue and have no impact on stock price.
I still don’t understand how Google thought it had a chance at success. They had the same model as Onlive had 10 years prior. It ended up failing for much the same reasons.
Product launches are the vehicle for attaining promotions at Google, allegedly. Maintenance does not get similarly rewarded, nor does launching projects and having them live on to actually be successful.
When the launcher got promoted and moved on, they have to figure out whether to keep the thing around, and the answer is generally going to be no since few things can really compete with the infinite money glitch that is search ads.