10 ms·

It's good they're providing refunds, but the decision to shut down whatever service the glasses relied on in an excellent way to demonstrate "When you buy a pro

• dorkinspace 6y ago
  Stories like this are why I will never buy a product like Stadia from Google. There is zero guarantee the product and games purchased on the platform will be usable next month (exaggerating a bit) or next year. This extends to all things Google. When building a new product, I push hard to use any alternative to Google because the future of their products is so uncertain. Sure, there are a few Google products that can be reasonably relied upon, but that list is small.
  • myko 6y ago
    I'm a big fan of Stadia but really can't argue against this thought process. It would be nice if Google had some way of marking products that were potentially going to be cancelled vs those that have passed the threshold and will not go away unless Google is in danger of going away completely. Reader really looks like the breaking of a dam in hindsight.
    • MengerSponge 6y ago
      'member when Google threw away their innovative social network in order to break the "+" boolean search operator?
    • Osiris 6y ago
      If Stadia were just a monthly subscription and you could play all the games, it wouldn't be hard to swallow because they just stop charging you when the service goes down and you got your value out of it while you had it. It's the "purchasing" of the digital good that's the problem because you loose access to something that you think you "own" when in fact it's more of a lease.
      • throwawaycuriou 6y ago
        I understand the confusion around Stadia pricing tiers, but if you buy a game on the service you can play it without any monthly fee. It's comparable to the lease you make with Valve with the expectation of Steam being around forever.
        • fiblye 6y ago
          There wasn’t any confusion. Their point was they’d much rather pay a monthly fee, because as it is, paying full price to “own” a Stadia game is ridiculous because Stadia is going to end up dead like most other google services and all the games you “own” will likely disappear.
        • gambiting 6y ago
          The problem is that Valve doesn't have a history of just cancelling their products and shutting their customers out. Google does, and an extensive one. So when they offer a service where you can buy software and said software will only work for as long as Stadia is around, I don't trust Google that service will exist in 3 years. And once it finally dies what will Google do? Give everyone AdWord vouchers?
        • mech422 6y ago
          Except on steam, you can install your purchases locally. So you can probably play them directly (Hmm..I should try and see)
  • abnry 6y ago
    I mean, do you ever doubt that Search, Gmail, or YouTube will ever get shelved? Seems like only the niche things get binned.
    • kohtatsu 6y ago
      The 3 you came up with are extremely low hanging fruit.
    • dorkinspace 6y ago
      Those 3 along with maps, ads, and a handful of others make up the list of "safe" Google products. I agree with you though, it is the niche products that get shutdown. My point is that being an early adopter of Google products is a very risky move. Until a product is adopted by the masses and profitable, it should not be considered safe.
      • at-fates-hands 6y ago
        Back in the day, I used to be all in on the Google bandwagon. I was in on Wave, Buzz, Meebo and bunch of others. After a few years of cycling through the standard phases: 1) Wow this is really cool 2) Wow I'm starting to use this everyday 3) Wow my friends should know about 4) Google is killing this Once you get over the idea their killing something you started to rely on and then you experience their "customer service" a few times you just wonder if its actually about trying to make the world a better place, or just adding revenue to their bottom line. My conclusion a long time ago was not to use them for anything personal and FFS nothing I would have my business rely on.
        • Izkata 6y ago
          Several years later, Wave was especially disappointing to me: It was Slack, before Slack was a thing. They just didn't know how to market Wave, so no one knew why it was useful. If Wave was first released a couple years later, with identical functionality, I think it would've done well.
    • fastball 6y ago
  • totalZero 6y ago
    Ever since Google told me to buzz off when I contacted them about the bootloop of death that bricked my Nexus 6P immediately after an automatic software update, I haven't bought a single hardware product marketed by them or supported by them. I won't even let myself use Google Fi. They earned my distrust.
    • kyrra 6y ago
      (Googler, opinion is my own) I think one big thing that differs between the Nexus line and the Pixel line of phones is who was actually supporting the phone after its sale. The Nexus phones were these shared branding between Google and the makers (LG, HTC, whoever). So it led to some pointing at the other person when there were problems. With the Pixel line, Google fully owns support of the devices, which makes it a bit easier for Google to deal with customer support issues like this.
      • m0xte 6y ago
        Ah yes the famed google customer support. Spent five days trying to get a g-suite dashboard error fixed immediately after provisioning. Eventually I switched to O365 with no regrets. And then there was the bricked chromecast from hell which they wouldn’t even acknowledge. Switched to Apple TV with no regrets. Add the usual quality control (how many years did my android phone alarm not go off or my SD card get trashed with photos on). Nope!
      • totalZero 6y ago
        That's a poor (and partially false) defense for Google's handling of the Bootloop of Death, for the following reasons: I bought Google's flagship handset online from the Google Store. It was branded as the "Google Nexus 6P", it was shipped to me by Google, and it bricked itself while booting after a Google-supplied Android update. Google provided and managed the warranty. I had one warranty claim with them prior to my phone bricking itself, handled entirely by Google; Huawei was not involved in that claim at all. My relationship as a consumer of a Google product is with Google, not with its contract manufacturer. The Bootloop of Death affected multiple SKUs across different Nexus models. The 5X was manufactured by LG for Google, and the 6P was manufactured by Huawei for Google. The Bootloop of Death was present on both models. If Google has a quarrel with Huawei, LG, or another contract manufacturer over the cost of managing a defect, that's their prerogative. However, I am not party to that quarrel. I am just a customer who bought Google's flagship handset. Google suggested that I contact the nearest Huawei service center...in mainland China. The company took an arrogant "who, me?" attitude toward its flagship handset, and tried to weasel its way out of dealing with valid customer complaints, rather than taking some semblance of responsibility for an obvious problem. > The Nexus phones were these shared branding between Google and the makers (LG, HTC, whoever) This is not true. The Nexus 6P was marketed by Google, not in a shared manner. You're thinking of the Nexus 6, a Motorola-made device that preceded the 6P and was offered in some markets without Google branding. > With the Pixel line, Google fully owns support of the devices, which makes it a bit easier for Google to deal with customer support issues like this. Google fully owned support for the Nexus 6P until the bootloop issue came around, at which point Google changed its policies. Also, Pixel devices have been manufactured by competing handset manufacturers for Google (Pixel 2 phones were manufactured by HTC and LG). The result of my experience is that I will never, so long as I live, ever buy another Google hardware product. Not a single one. I will not buy a Nest Thermostat. I will not buy a Chromecast. If my best friend has a lapse in judgment and makes the mistake of buying a Pixelbook, I will wait for him to leave it on the couch, unintentionally sit on it, and buy him a 16" Macbook Pro as a replacement -- apologizing profusely all the while, unlike Google support which was ostensibly trained not to use the phrase, "I'm sorry." Every time someone tries to defend Google for its handling of the Nexus Bootloop of Death fiasco, I add twenty years to the length of time that the trustees of my estate will prohibit my assets from being used to buy Google hardware products after I am dead and gone.
  • Marsymars 6y ago
    > There is zero guarantee the product and games purchased on the platform will be usable next month (exaggerating a bit) or next year. Keep in mind that this is a conscious decision. Google could easily provide a contractual guarantee to Stadia customers.
    • facorreia 6y ago
      Absolutely. The fact that they choose to not provide this guarantee is a major red flag and a strong reason for me to not spend money on that platform. On the other hand, I have zero concern that my digital licenses of XBox or PlayStation games will vanish within the next couple decades.
      • rlayton2 6y ago
        Well, you should have a little concern. On my switch, I can buy games either digitally or physically for just about the same price. I buy most games physically, as one cannot guarantee the server that downloads games will work in 10 years (my Wii doesn't do this type of stuff now, but its less integral). Pretty much any online game will be shut down, its just a case of when.
        • smileybarry 6y ago
          > as one cannot guarantee the server that downloads games will work in 10 years While true, the pain point with Stadia is you have no downloads, for better and for worse. If Nintendo take their download servers down, you can still play all of your downloaded purchases. On that note, I have much more faith in Nintendo's future handling of digital purchases this time around. They've put a lot more effort into the Switch's digital services compared to the Wii, which at times felt like an afterthought with the whole "WiiWare" artificial gatekeeping fiasco.
  • pjmlp 6y ago
    What about B̶r̶i̶l̶l̶o̶, A̶n̶d̶r̶o̶i̶d̶ ̶T̶h̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ (no news since [1]) Or A̶n̶d̶r̶o̶i̶d̶ ̶W̶e̶a̶r̶, W̶e̶a̶r̶ ̶O̶S̶ (no news since [2]) [1] - https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2019/02/an-update-on-android-things.html https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2019/02/an-update-... [2] - https://blog.google/products/wear-os/investing-wear-os-ecosystem/ https://blog.google/products/wear-os/investing-wear-os-ecosy...
• jonas21 6y ago
  People didn't buy the product from Google. They bought it from North -- which was later acquired by Google for less than they had raised as they were apparently running out of money [1]. If North had not been acquired and had simply gone out of business, the service also would have been shut down (and likely without a refund). [1] https://9to5google.com/2020/06/25/alphabet-north-focals/ https://9to5google.com/2020/06/25/alphabet-north-focals/
  • baldajan 6y ago
    "for less than they had raised" - that's actually not true and sloppy journalism from the journalists that wrote it. If you look at North's funding - the difference between the suspected purchase price of $180M and what they raised ($200M) is a $24M loan they received from the government of Canada [1], which was called back shortly after (because of layoffs) [2]. The remaining $4M difference is probably interest on a standard debt financing loan of $40M they received [3] and some rounding error in the $180M suspected purchase price. It seems Google bought them for the exact amount raised, in both debt and funding. [1] https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/north-receives-24-million-investment-from-government-of-canada/411840 https://www.itworldcanada.com/article/north-receives-24-mill... [2] https://www.therecord.com/business/2019/02/22/federal-government-freezes-investment-in-wake-of-north-inc-layoffs.html https://www.therecord.com/business/2019/02/22/federal-govern... [3] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/north-8daa/company_financials https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/north-8daa/company_f...
    • 908B64B197 6y ago
      North's performance didn't beat inflation. It's worth less today than the money it raised in the past.
      • arcticbull 6y ago
        Ok, but, like, that's a rounding error. They were acquired for what they raised, to within a rounding error. And as they say in Vegas, a push is a win.
• SmokeyHamster 6y ago
  Not just Google buy any company's cloud-connected product. I have a Roomba i7, and it works well, but it's 100% reliant on a web connection to control and to train it's automapping feature. If iRobot gets bored with the model and decides to discontinue it and the cloud host, am I going to be stuck with an expensive paperweight, even it's mechanically still in great condition?
  • lucasmullens 6y ago
    Is that true? I just unplugged my router and my Roomba runs just fine. Their support seems to suggest that they work without Wi-Fi: https://homesupport.irobot.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/20723/~/can-i-use-roomba%C2%AE-without-wi-fi%3F#:~:text=Roomba%20robot%20vacuums%20do%20not,robot%20will%20get%20to%20work.&text=It%20is%20important%20to%20remember,for%20it%20to%20return%20home https://homesupport.irobot.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/20723....
• 908B64B197 6y ago
  It wasn't an acqui-hire. The founders are not joining Google and from what I heard employees were not even offered interviews, despite the announcement that the company was going to join their offshore location in Canada. It's a pure patent play, acquiring the Vaunt patents from Intel. It was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23691349
• s17n 6y ago
  Every product relies on an external ecosystem for it to be useful. The lesson is to that if you're buying a product that isn't already highly successful, don't get too attached. Incidentally, the vast majority of the world already learned this lesson, it's the reason why most people aren't early adopters, nobody ever got fired for buying IBM, etc.
  • wmf 6y ago
    It seems like it should be possible to build smart glasses that rely on, say, an Android phone which isn't going away any time soon.
    • totetsu 6y ago
      Once an android phone stops receiving updates, its only a matter of time until google play services stops working on that version of android, and then it becomes a big PITA to do anything google related with it, as it keeps redirecting away from web pages you to apps that tell you that you can't use them. I wouldn't rely on Android to not go anywhere.
      • wmf 6y ago
        When your phone gets EOLed you buy a newer Android phone and the glasses would keep working.
        • pjmlp 6y ago
          If life was so simple. The new Android version might have introduced features that render that old app worthless. Examples of such changes. Locking down use of private APIs (abused by some apps), locking down NDK to the official Android native APIs and public shared objects, both cases app gets killed when doing naughty stuff, sandboxed file system (now really enforced in upcoming 11), permissions (now enforced with the Play Store minimum target version), and a couple more. So if the app happens not to be constantly updated, it might just be rendered worthless with a new Android phone.
  • 6y ago
• twblalock 6y ago
  > Some customers will ask the question "So what happens when you get acqui-hired in a year and your parent company decides to shut down your service either immediately, or a year after they tell customers that everything will continue unchanged?" An acquihire is not the most likely outcome. The most likely outcome is that the startup will fail, possibly pulling support for the product with no advance notice. An acquihire or acquisition is one of the best chances customers have for continued support, unless the startup manages to go public and survive on its own.
• stingrae 6y ago
  In an ideal world, Google could keep all the endpoints up and functioning. The issue is as software ages, exploits turn up and you end up requiring a team to just maintain a service with no future.
• pjmlp 6y ago
  Maybe that is just me, but that is exactly the point why I reduce to the minimum any kind of stuff that relies on subscription services. I still buy CDs, MP3, DVD, games that come in boxes,....
  • Tepix 6y ago
    The ability to re-sell games that you played is totally undervalued.
• amelius 6y ago
  > Google of course is famous for doing this with many of its products There are even complete websites dedicated to it: https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://gcemetery.co/ https://gcemetery.co/