5 ms·

Having been approached by Google for these kinds of projects, I 100% believe this. I was leading a team approached by them to do something similar for Google Gl

by madrox 6y ago

Having been approached by Google for these kinds of projects, I 100% believe this. I was leading a team approached by them to do something similar for Google Glass. There was no real incentive there except the privilege of being an early glass partner. The entire process of working with them was a nightmare and we decided to bow out. I'm short on any attempt Google makes at being a media company.

52-6F-62 6y ago
Just to add general interest info to this strain of the conversation: I had to work with Apple in ensuring content for the launch of News+ in Canada after they bought out Next Issue/Texture, and they were very involved and the incentives were substantial. It makes a real-world difference, there's no doubt about it. Hell, this is why governments issue arts funding. The return has virtually limitless potential in more than just the financial aspects. But it does take commitment, perseverance, and often, patience.
- canada_dry 6y ago
  > commitment, perseverance, and often, patience Despite these being crucial attributes to being a good developer, it's shocking how few (people and tech organizations) exhibit them.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    Namely, Google.
krick 6y ago
I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not. On one hand, it kind of fits my mental image of Google perfectly, I don't know why. On the other: doesn't Google have a shitload of money and doesn't Google burn it so often by starting hundreds of projects it just kills after a couple of years of development?
- sgift 6y ago
  The problem is not that Google couldn't pay them. The problem is that Google is arrogant as hell: Why should we pay you when we give you the privilege to be part of something we, the masters of the universe, introduce? They fail to understand that from the outside people don't see things Google does as sure bets.
enos_feedler 6y ago
Google glass and game streaming are two very different projects with different motivations/incentives etc for partnering. Game streaming is on the cusp of becoming mainstream. The technology works (playable latency), and the overall product is simpler than competing products (pcs, consoles) for the job we hire gaming hardware for. It is clear the future is in the controllers and displays, not in math boxes. The biggest difference is that gaming is an existing habit gamers have. Google Glass was something completely new and was unclear what we were using it for. I would also say "media company" is pretty broad. Will Google become a media infrastructure company? yes (they already are). Will they become a media platform? yes, (they already are). Anything more and it's probably spreading investment too thin, but those are substantial components to media.
- Reason077 6y ago
  Game Streaming also needs typical home internet connections to get better before it can really go mainstream. Not everyone has low latency, high reliability fibre in their home, yet. If you have some crappy DSL or whatever then the experience isn’t great. Likewise if your WiFi signal is anything less than perfect! And the people who do pay for the best internet connections are often those who don’t need Stadia, because they already have latest-generation consoles and gaming PCs?
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    That's a great point. I did say the technology is proven but did not specify the market this is ready for. It is sort of like Tesla adoption 10 years ago. It will take time for the investments in technology and infrastructure to cover more of the market. Hopefully Verizon can accelerate their mmWave 5g deploys.

by madrox 6y ago

52-6F-62 6y ago

Just to add general interest info to this strain of the conversation: I had to work with Apple in ensuring content for the launch of News+ in Canada after they bought out Next Issue/Texture, and they were very involved and the incentives were substantial. It makes a real-world difference, there's no doubt about it. Hell, this is why governments issue arts funding. The return has virtually limitless potential in more than just the financial aspects. But it does take commitment, perseverance, and often, patience.

canada_dry 6y ago
> commitment, perseverance, and often, patience Despite these being crucial attributes to being a good developer, it's shocking how few (people and tech organizations) exhibit them.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  Namely, Google.

krick 6y ago

I'm not sure if I'm surprised or not. On one hand, it kind of fits my mental image of Google perfectly, I don't know why. On the other: doesn't Google have a shitload of money and doesn't Google burn it so often by starting hundreds of projects it just kills after a couple of years of development?

sgift 6y ago
The problem is not that Google couldn't pay them. The problem is that Google is arrogant as hell: Why should we pay you when we give you the privilege to be part of something we, the masters of the universe, introduce? They fail to understand that from the outside people don't see things Google does as sure bets.

enos_feedler 6y ago

Google glass and game streaming are two very different projects with different motivations/incentives etc for partnering. Game streaming is on the cusp of becoming mainstream. The technology works (playable latency), and the overall product is simpler than competing products (pcs, consoles) for the job we hire gaming hardware for. It is clear the future is in the controllers and displays, not in math boxes. The biggest difference is that gaming is an existing habit gamers have. Google Glass was something completely new and was unclear what we were using it for. I would also say "media company" is pretty broad. Will Google become a media infrastructure company? yes (they already are). Will they become a media platform? yes, (they already are). Anything more and it's probably spreading investment too thin, but those are substantial components to media.

Reason077 6y ago
Game Streaming also needs typical home internet connections to get better before it can really go mainstream. Not everyone has low latency, high reliability fibre in their home, yet. If you have some crappy DSL or whatever then the experience isn’t great. Likewise if your WiFi signal is anything less than perfect! And the people who do pay for the best internet connections are often those who don’t need Stadia, because they already have latest-generation consoles and gaming PCs?
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  That's a great point. I did say the technology is proven but did not specify the market this is ready for. It is sort of like Tesla adoption 10 years ago. It will take time for the investments in technology and infrastructure to cover more of the market. Hopefully Verizon can accelerate their mmWave 5g deploys.