3 ms·

I feel their strategy makes a lot of sense if each project is treated like a startup. Release the mvp, iterate quickly, shut it down if it isn't working... The

I feel their strategy makes a lot of sense if each project is treated like a startup. Release the mvp, iterate quickly, shut it down if it isn't working... The problem is they attach the Google name for clout and then proceed to drag that name through the mud when they stop support. Google's name now isn't worth much to me if I'm considering an experimental product. They should not use the Google moniker unless they are willing to provide long term support.

me_me_me 5y ago
This was not a startup project. For Stadia to work they needed a lot of ties to the customer and games companies. > Release the mvp, iterate quickly, shut it down if it isn't working... This means that anyone integrating with your product takes huge gamble that you will be here in X months, why risk it? Google made none thinking that G factor is enough. Its basically Google+ 2.0 Throwing just some money into already occupied and competitive market and expecting things to happen is borderline fraud. Statia was a stillborn project sailing on a sinking ship made purely out of wishful thinking.
nmfisher 5y ago
Except startups usually has a couple of people with nothing to fall back on, who will fight tooth and nail to try and succeed. Your average Google VP is far too comfortable - and with nowhere near enough humility - to stoop to that level.