6 ms·
People use office because they need a feature or compatibility. Nobody chooses software based on reputation.
by marcodiego 5y ago
People use office because they need a feature or compatibility. Nobody chooses software based on reputation.
- thesuperbigfrog 5y ago>> Nobody chooses software based on reputation. That's why Google has been so successful with Stadia.
- jchw 5y agoStadia isn’t even a good idea in the first place. Even if it is the best implementation of the idea, I still have no idea how it could ever make much sense. Other players in the space, like GeForce Now, don’t exactly look appealing either.
- sangnoir 5y agoI know it's a niche market, but Stadia is really convenient when traveling. All you need to pack is a controller.
- throwaway2048 5y agoassuming you only travel to places with good internet and a nearby stadia server
- 41b696ef1113 5y agoI think the value proposition is definitely there for a "rent a gaming pc" service. Cost/library/performance are thorny problems to solve, but if I were able to ditch my Windows PC[0] for a robust solution, I could consider it. Seemingly the only way I would possibly be able to utilize a current generation Nvidia equivalent card. [0] I use Linux, but no, Proton is not fully there. Plenty of games either do not work or have enough glitches that make it unacceptable.
- nitrogen 5y agoYou would need a very large number of colocation setups to get latency low enough.
- Bobylonian 5y agoBut looking on global picture and far in future with satellite internet - that is easily solvable, but technical issues on running those games in Stadia are least things that people are concerned about. My personal preferences is owning a game library, because not always I play games, that require co-op or connection, but if the future is that you are opening browser and playing game from vast library of games on TV, for wich you pay subscription fee, then Stadia is on the right track. Actually, Stadia would be only one of many services and most probably that would be combined with Microsoft gaming. Looking in retrospect, most of the things are logical from what Microsoft was doing, but the question to me is always about if this is something I want as well. Looking on how automatic updates behaves on my Windows 10, it seems that 2022 is the year, I am abandoning Windows. And Stadia here is least thing I am worried about, because I don't.
- dehrmann 5y ago> satellite internet - that is easily solvable Starlink's latency is probably barely OK for multiplayer games, but not for remote rendering.
- cobertos 5y agoIdk, I had a good time with shadow.tech? Mostly because I use Linux and wanted to play a game that doesn't port to Windows well (Roblox, due to anticheat not getting along with Wine). GeForce Now and Stadia didn't have the games I wanted to play so I wasn't able to use them.
- foldr 5y agoWhat makes you say that? I find Stadia works really great for me as a gaming platform. I don't have any issues with lag and I like not having to have a noisy console in my living room. The only issue with it is the limited library, but that's not inherent to the basic idea.
- marcodiego 5y agoStadia is a service. Actually very few people have the luxury of being able to choose their software. When compatibility, previous knowledge or an specific feature is key, people simply can't choose.
- weird-eye-issue 5y agoBad example because none of the "cloud gaming" companies have been very successful
- FormerBandmate 5y agoStadia has no backwards compatibility, established user base, or ecosystem lock-in. Gmail and Android do, so despite having many of the same issues as Stadia, they’re incredibly popular
- gman83 5y agoStadia has been great for me. I just love it.
- reaperducer 5y agoNobody chooses software based on reputation. I guess you didn't live through the "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" era, which later became the "Nobody got fired for buying Microsoft" era that seems to be ending.
- slac 5y agoIt is now the "nobody got fired for buying a Gartner report" era.
- FormerBandmate 5y agoCorporate clients definitely pick based on reputation. Why do you think Teams is bigger than Slack
- unethical_ban 5y agoTeams is bigger than slack? Like, the executable? Teams is an abomination; something to be cast into the fires of Mount Doom. Slack is miles better for everyday communication.
- breakfastduck 5y agoI agree its absolutely awful but Teams is far bigger than Slack, I'm not sure why you'd argue that.
- unethical_ban 5y agoMy sample size of three large companies, two use Slack. Boom. (I did move the goalposts from "deployment size" to "quality").
- ghostly_s 5y agoBecause of Office license lock-in, not reputation.
- ryantgtg 5y agoDon’t they “choose” Teams because it integrates with outlook/sharepoint/etc? That seems to be the case at my job. Basically, Teams replaced Skype.
- behnamoh 5y agoPart of it is rational, because they see lots of chaos/noise in the market while having to make too many decisions. Following the "best practices" only saves them decision-making time. Might not be the "best" in practice, but at least they don't have to examine a gazillion options that are available.
- 5y ago
- ineedasername 5y agoI've been involved in a bunch of large Enterprise purchases and reputation definitely was a consideration. We typically interview other customers to find out their pros/cons and in one case travelled onsite to another customer to not only talk to them but go over their installation in person. (These were all done without a vendor representative present, and I can think of a few cases where it made the difference in deciding not to go with a vendor)
- speed_spread 5y agoThe commercial value of software is _nothing but reputation_. Would you buy software tools from a company about to go bankrupt? You pay for software with the idea that what you're not trusting your data and operations to a technological dead end. The problem here being that nobody is paying for software anymore in an ad-revenue model, meaning that companies have much less to lose doing that kind of shit.