3 ms·
I think you're painting them with too broad of a brush. The documents here discuss exactly what the main problems were, so there's no need for us to speculate t
by Reubend 3y ago
I think you're painting them with too broad of a brush. The documents here discuss exactly what the main problems were, so there's no need for us to speculate that a poor name or a lack of partnership from other platforms were big factors.
However, I do think we can speculate about why the lack of games became so dire. In my opinion, finding a way to license Windows at some sustainable pricing level would have saved them. And perhaps partnering with Valve to develop Proton further might have been a decent option as well.
- phendrenad2 3y ago> The documents here discuss exactly what the main problems were, so there's no need for us to speculate Hmm, no, I prefer to not believe everything I read, thanks.
- Reubend 3y agoTo be skeptical is a good trait. But in this case, I trust that this exec, who has intimate knowledge of the program and the challenges it faced over its whole lifespan, knows broadly what went wrong. As discussed in the document, they did thorough market research and spent a lot of money on making this work. I too don't believe everything I read, so I will dismiss your explanation of the program's failure ("Google as an org... has a superiority complex") as a prejudiced and irrelevant assertion.
- phendrenad2 3y agoThis is a strange response. So we should be skeptical of people not knowing things, but not skeptical of people in general? Politicians know a lot of things, do we trust them 100% of the time..?
- Reubend 3y agoWe can be skeptical of a truck mechanic's opinions on quantum physics, and we can be skeptical of a physicist's opinions as well. But certainly the physicist deserves less skepticism, because they have expert knowledge on the subject (whether or not we trust them to tell us the truth).
- phendrenad2 3y agoJust because you can provide a worse example, doesn't mean your logic isn't also flawed.