4 ms·

>What's the best way to launch new, risky things? Slow-roll invite-only launch to establish a core user base, work out the bugs, show staying power, and build

>What's the best way to launch new, risky things? Slow-roll invite-only launch to establish a core user base, work out the bugs, show staying power, and build from there. Exactly what Google did in 2004 with Gmail.

pb7 4y ago
The same strategy that failed with Google+. It's not as foolproof as you're making it out to be.
- bink 4y ago
  That's not really apples to apples though. Gmail worked with external SMTP services to send and receive mail. Google+ required that anyone you wanted to connect to also have been offered and accepted an invite (or received one of your limited invites).
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  It seems plausible that social networks have more of a network effect than things like a game streaming platform. Obviously there's still some network effect and a certain marketing aspect to it, but I don't think they're directly comparable.
  - pb7 4y ago
    You have to convince game developers to port their games. If the reward is a few thousand users, it's going to be a hard sell. Also the R&D and infrastructure required to even start up the project is too high. Building a Gmail (especially back then) is small potatoes in comparison.
Thaxll 4y ago
Well for a thing like Stadia it's not doable, you have very complex hardware and r&d to do first.
theptip 4y ago
That works great for a service where costs scale with users so you can run lean in beta. Unfortunately I don’t think Stadia fits that description well; you need to build hardware, network PoPs, license games, etc. Maybe there is a private-beta approach that really iterates, initially uses off-the-shelf hardware, only launches in one state, has limited games, etc. but it’s hard to make a splash like that. I think if Stadia had just been better (so everyone using it was raving about it) the Google reputation might not have mattered. It just ended up not being a game-changer economically, people still want to buy consoles etc. The model of thin-client gaming might win long-term but it’s just not a clear winner yet.
- jldugger 4y ago
  > Unfortunately I don’t think Stadia fits that description well; you need to build hardware, network PoPs, license games, etc. Hardware is literally scaled by customer demand, and was one of the reasons gmail went with the invite only launch. Network PoPs are less an issue when you are already piggybacking off of Goog / GCP infrastructure, and you can mitigate the remaining costs by per country launches. And they did exactly that. It's still not supported in Hawaii. https://support.google.com/stadia/answer/9338852?hl=en https://support.google.com/stadia/answer/9338852?hl=en > I think if Stadia had just been better (so everyone using it was raving about it) the Google reputation might not have mattered. Stadia was too late to market, in a field where content is rare enough relative to the number of competitors to have bargaining power. And they have no vertical integration to lean on. Nvidia has GPUs in house, MS/Sony/Nintendo have game devs in house for exclusives. Amazon _might_ be able to parley Twitch into a profitable Luna, but its a long shot.
  - munificent 4y ago
    > Hardware is literally scaled by customer demand Hardware manufacturing is, but design is most certainly not. It takes as much work to design a controller that you build one of as it does a controller you build a million of.
    - jldugger 4y ago
delecti 4y ago
Conversely, they tried the same approach with Google+ and the slow rollout absolutely killed the momentum of a desired service.

pb7 4y ago

The same strategy that failed with Google+. It's not as foolproof as you're making it out to be.

bink 4y ago
That's not really apples to apples though. Gmail worked with external SMTP services to send and receive mail. Google+ required that anyone you wanted to connect to also have been offered and accepted an invite (or received one of your limited invites).
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
It seems plausible that social networks have more of a network effect than things like a game streaming platform. Obviously there's still some network effect and a certain marketing aspect to it, but I don't think they're directly comparable.
- pb7 4y ago
  You have to convince game developers to port their games. If the reward is a few thousand users, it's going to be a hard sell. Also the R&D and infrastructure required to even start up the project is too high. Building a Gmail (especially back then) is small potatoes in comparison.

Thaxll 4y ago

Well for a thing like Stadia it's not doable, you have very complex hardware and r&d to do first.

theptip 4y ago

That works great for a service where costs scale with users so you can run lean in beta. Unfortunately I don’t think Stadia fits that description well; you need to build hardware, network PoPs, license games, etc. Maybe there is a private-beta approach that really iterates, initially uses off-the-shelf hardware, only launches in one state, has limited games, etc. but it’s hard to make a splash like that. I think if Stadia had just been better (so everyone using it was raving about it) the Google reputation might not have mattered. It just ended up not being a game-changer economically, people still want to buy consoles etc. The model of thin-client gaming might win long-term but it’s just not a clear winner yet.

jldugger 4y ago
> Unfortunately I don’t think Stadia fits that description well; you need to build hardware, network PoPs, license games, etc. Hardware is literally scaled by customer demand, and was one of the reasons gmail went with the invite only launch. Network PoPs are less an issue when you are already piggybacking off of Goog / GCP infrastructure, and you can mitigate the remaining costs by per country launches. And they did exactly that. It's still not supported in Hawaii. https://support.google.com/stadia/answer/9338852?hl=en https://support.google.com/stadia/answer/9338852?hl=en > I think if Stadia had just been better (so everyone using it was raving about it) the Google reputation might not have mattered. Stadia was too late to market, in a field where content is rare enough relative to the number of competitors to have bargaining power. And they have no vertical integration to lean on. Nvidia has GPUs in house, MS/Sony/Nintendo have game devs in house for exclusives. Amazon _might_ be able to parley Twitch into a profitable Luna, but its a long shot.
- munificent 4y ago
  > Hardware is literally scaled by customer demand Hardware manufacturing is, but design is most certainly not. It takes as much work to design a controller that you build one of as it does a controller you build a million of.
  - jldugger 4y ago

delecti 4y ago

Conversely, they tried the same approach with Google+ and the slow rollout absolutely killed the momentum of a desired service.