5 ms·

I’d be curious as to the elevator pitch presented to Google execs and why they bought into it. Wasn’t anyone thinking about the issues you brought up? Seems lik

by _HMCB_ 4y ago

I’d be curious as to the elevator pitch presented to Google execs and why they bought into it. Wasn’t anyone thinking about the issues you brought up? Seems like fundamental issues. To think they spent millions and millions on this service only to close it down in short order. Typical Google but what other company does this repeatedly with 4-year precision.

heavyset_go 4y ago
I think some of Google's strategy is identifying new markets and potential rivals, and then throwing their resources at them until they dominate the market or buy/crush the competition. Building a sustainably profitable product is ancillary to that and not much of a factor initially.
- bombcar 4y ago
  I suspect this was exactly it; Google saw a potential for something like this, wanted in on it, and when the whole market didn't pan out, abandoned it. Microsoft did something similar with the Xbox (people forget that it was basically done because they were afraid that consoles would become general purpose computers and destroy the Windows monopoly) but they also actually made a business with it and made it profitable in its own right.
  - ahartmetz 4y ago
    In his book "The Road Ahead", which was full of bad predictions by the way, Bill Gates wrote something about the competition between computers and TVs and about set-top boxes. The original Xbox makes sense in that context. It was a bottom-up project initially, but its approval probably had something to do with Bill Gates' set-top box ideas. Microsoft Bob was another related development (cf. the Xbox dashboard, computing appliance).
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Go back to the 90s or maybe early 2000s, and there was definitely this widespread vision of a media hub connected to the TV in the living room as the primary home entertainment device (or even more broadly home control). People weren't necessarily in broad agreement about the nature of such a device but it was certainly a more centralized view of the world than what ultimately has ended up playing out.
      - bombcar 4y ago
        If you replace “TV” with mobile phone we actually got pretty close to the predictions.
        ghaff 4y ago
        True. Many people primarily interact with entertainment, news, etc. through a single connected device. It's just much more individualized and on the go interactions than it was envisioned in the guise of a home theater/living room hub.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  But in this case they didn't do any of that?
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    I see it as a foray into the cloud gaming market and a way to stifle competition. Once Google throws its weight into the game, it might be harder for smaller companies to keep up or even secure enough funding to compete. It's not always going to work out, but I do think Google's actions helped stifle competition in that market. Google could have successfully stopped another company from blowing up in that market and becoming a real competitor to worry about in other markets down the line.
    - Macha 4y ago
      It certainly made publishers put pressure on nvidia to block their games from its "stream your own steam library" service, because it gave them the idea they could get service exclusivity bonuses and full retail price for the privilege, something I doubt they'll roll back just because that model has failed for now
- hinkley 4y ago
  IMO, Google died the day they announced they weren’t going to work on anything with less than a billion dollar revenue potential. It sounds like a financially smart thing to do but it cuts your legs out because nobody is doing research anymore, and you select for people with half a billion potential and an eagerness to lie.
nicbou 4y ago
The further your lifestyle is from that of a Silicon Valley developer, the further FAANG is from serving your needs. No one devs on a 8 year old budget laptop or a slow internet connection. Some devs forget that those even exist.
- kanbara 4y ago
  maybe for some, but not for all. or do you think making phones and computers is out of touch from normal people’s needs?
- Macha 4y ago
  It's very common on HN to forget that Macs have only a 10% share of the laptop market for sure
  - nicbou 4y ago
    Even high end Windows laptops have a small market share. Same for 4K displays. Fast internet isn't a given either. It's slow in some areas, and slower in most hotels. I've had sub-10mbps, 1500ms ping internet quite often, especially while travelling. That's without counting cultural assumptions SV companies make, especially when their staff is lacking in cultural diversity.
wokwokwok 4y ago
You’ve just got to look back through history and you’ll see the same thing play out, and controversially it’s not actually the worst play in the long run. 1) pick a high risk / high reward opportunity 2) invest heavily in the fundamental tech behind it and see if it works out 3) when it doesn’t work out, shut it down, take the tech you built and use it for something. So for example, let’s look at dart. There was never any way it was going to work, really… but, at the time, maaaaybe, it could have worked. …and google would have owned the web stack entirely. …but, they’ve put it to work in flutter now and that’s going ok. The point I’m making is that if you look at this from the perspective of investment in fundamental technology (Ie. Steaming video say) what’s better? A) develop it with no specific use case B) work really hard on a very difficult use case that might end up failing If you can afford it, the latter is maybe not the worst way of doing it. You end up with battle tested technology and no users to bother you for the made-in-a-rush service you made to go with it. You could easily argue that more successfully outcomes could come from less risky investments… but do you want 50 kind of bleh services in your portfolio? I don’t think google does. They want a few unicorns. You don’t get unicorns by playing it safe. So… I’m not saying it’s the right strategy, or even a good one, but from that perspective you can see why you’d try. Bet: we’ll see something fancy using the streaming tech roll out eventually, probably linked to a more successful existing product, it will be unremarkable and well liked by most people.
- josephg 4y ago
  The counterpoint is that their strategy is burning trust in their brand. New products depend on early adopters to mature and grow. But I’ve been burned by Google’s product ADHD so many times now that I refuse to be an early adopter of any of their products. If gmail came out today, I’d assume it would be shut down in a few years and I wouldn’t touch it. The only Google products I’d use today are Android, Chrome, Search, Gmail and sometimes firebase or Meet. I think Google meet is the only thing in that list less than 10 years old. (And even then it’s just rebranded Hangouts). Every time Google shuts down a product, they hurt their reputation. They’re pissing in the pool that future Google products need to survive. At this point I don’t know if Google can make successful new products because nobody trusts their follow through.

by _HMCB_ 4y ago

heavyset_go 4y ago

I think some of Google's strategy is identifying new markets and potential rivals, and then throwing their resources at them until they dominate the market or buy/crush the competition. Building a sustainably profitable product is ancillary to that and not much of a factor initially.

bombcar 4y ago
I suspect this was exactly it; Google saw a potential for something like this, wanted in on it, and when the whole market didn't pan out, abandoned it. Microsoft did something similar with the Xbox (people forget that it was basically done because they were afraid that consoles would become general purpose computers and destroy the Windows monopoly) but they also actually made a business with it and made it profitable in its own right.
- ahartmetz 4y ago
  In his book "The Road Ahead", which was full of bad predictions by the way, Bill Gates wrote something about the competition between computers and TVs and about set-top boxes. The original Xbox makes sense in that context. It was a bottom-up project initially, but its approval probably had something to do with Bill Gates' set-top box ideas. Microsoft Bob was another related development (cf. the Xbox dashboard, computing appliance).
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Go back to the 90s or maybe early 2000s, and there was definitely this widespread vision of a media hub connected to the TV in the living room as the primary home entertainment device (or even more broadly home control). People weren't necessarily in broad agreement about the nature of such a device but it was certainly a more centralized view of the world than what ultimately has ended up playing out.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      If you replace “TV” with mobile phone we actually got pretty close to the predictions.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        True. Many people primarily interact with entertainment, news, etc. through a single connected device. It's just much more individualized and on the go interactions than it was envisioned in the guise of a home theater/living room hub.
GekkePrutser 4y ago
But in this case they didn't do any of that?
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  I see it as a foray into the cloud gaming market and a way to stifle competition. Once Google throws its weight into the game, it might be harder for smaller companies to keep up or even secure enough funding to compete. It's not always going to work out, but I do think Google's actions helped stifle competition in that market. Google could have successfully stopped another company from blowing up in that market and becoming a real competitor to worry about in other markets down the line.
  - Macha 4y ago
    It certainly made publishers put pressure on nvidia to block their games from its "stream your own steam library" service, because it gave them the idea they could get service exclusivity bonuses and full retail price for the privilege, something I doubt they'll roll back just because that model has failed for now
hinkley 4y ago
IMO, Google died the day they announced they weren’t going to work on anything with less than a billion dollar revenue potential. It sounds like a financially smart thing to do but it cuts your legs out because nobody is doing research anymore, and you select for people with half a billion potential and an eagerness to lie.

nicbou 4y ago

The further your lifestyle is from that of a Silicon Valley developer, the further FAANG is from serving your needs. No one devs on a 8 year old budget laptop or a slow internet connection. Some devs forget that those even exist.

kanbara 4y ago
maybe for some, but not for all. or do you think making phones and computers is out of touch from normal people’s needs?
Macha 4y ago
It's very common on HN to forget that Macs have only a 10% share of the laptop market for sure
- nicbou 4y ago
  Even high end Windows laptops have a small market share. Same for 4K displays. Fast internet isn't a given either. It's slow in some areas, and slower in most hotels. I've had sub-10mbps, 1500ms ping internet quite often, especially while travelling. That's without counting cultural assumptions SV companies make, especially when their staff is lacking in cultural diversity.

wokwokwok 4y ago

You’ve just got to look back through history and you’ll see the same thing play out, and controversially it’s not actually the worst play in the long run. 1) pick a high risk / high reward opportunity 2) invest heavily in the fundamental tech behind it and see if it works out 3) when it doesn’t work out, shut it down, take the tech you built and use it for something. So for example, let’s look at dart. There was never any way it was going to work, really… but, at the time, maaaaybe, it could have worked. …and google would have owned the web stack entirely. …but, they’ve put it to work in flutter now and that’s going ok. The point I’m making is that if you look at this from the perspective of investment in fundamental technology (Ie. Steaming video say) what’s better? A) develop it with no specific use case B) work really hard on a very difficult use case that might end up failing If you can afford it, the latter is maybe not the worst way of doing it. You end up with battle tested technology and no users to bother you for the made-in-a-rush service you made to go with it. You could easily argue that more successfully outcomes could come from less risky investments… but do you want 50 kind of bleh services in your portfolio? I don’t think google does. They want a few unicorns. You don’t get unicorns by playing it safe. So… I’m not saying it’s the right strategy, or even a good one, but from that perspective you can see why you’d try. Bet: we’ll see something fancy using the streaming tech roll out eventually, probably linked to a more successful existing product, it will be unremarkable and well liked by most people.

josephg 4y ago
The counterpoint is that their strategy is burning trust in their brand. New products depend on early adopters to mature and grow. But I’ve been burned by Google’s product ADHD so many times now that I refuse to be an early adopter of any of their products. If gmail came out today, I’d assume it would be shut down in a few years and I wouldn’t touch it. The only Google products I’d use today are Android, Chrome, Search, Gmail and sometimes firebase or Meet. I think Google meet is the only thing in that list less than 10 years old. (And even then it’s just rebranded Hangouts). Every time Google shuts down a product, they hurt their reputation. They’re pissing in the pool that future Google products need to survive. At this point I don’t know if Google can make successful new products because nobody trusts their follow through.