6 ms·

Is anyone at Google even aware how much this hurts their brand? I received an email from Google today with the subject line "Meet the new Google TV Streamer (4

• 0x457 2y ago
  Google TV, the hardware dongle, been around for a while already. Pretty solid Android TV device if you don't own Nvidia Shield. Really nice for travel. > I won't even consider buying one. How long until it's an obsolete brick? And when it's a brick, what are the chances I can wipe it and install my own software on it? Probably zero. You can install LineageOS on it today. If you want to complain about Google TV, the strategy is to bring up the first product to use that name. No one remembers it, and completely unrelated to current Google TV. Probably why Google chosen than name - even they forgot they had a product with that name already.
• sionisrecur 2y ago
  The amount of people using the feature was probably a rounding error for them. This is probably true for all the services they kill.
  • davisr 2y ago
    s/people using the feature/profit left to extract/g
  • dpkirchner 2y ago
    Removing the link to view cached content will do that.
• pbreit 2y ago
  My guess is it was a pain keeping up with the takedown requests.
  • heyoni 2y ago
    Treat it like you do customer support and automate it. Or is that not allowed?
    • Alupis 2y ago
      Do you actually want automated take-downs? Isn't that what people already complain the most about on YouTube?
      • derefr 2y ago
        It’s a cache; it was going to expire after a TTL anyway.
      • heyoni 2y ago
        No. But caching takedowns is not the same at all as YouTube takedowns. It’s very very clear who owns what data and after the takedown the site owner can modify the robots.txt and move on. So yes, takedowns here are fine.
      • skinnymuch 2y ago
        It’s a cache. Relatively speaking, who cares
• amorfusblob 2y ago
  I agree, and also know my own personal bias against this particular company and whatever extent I might go to boycott or avoid its products are ultimately inconsequential to their bottom line.
• Alupis 2y ago
  I'm aware of Google's history of shutting down services... but... > And when it's a brick, what are the chances I can wipe it and install my own software on it? Probably zero. Will you have no trouble buying a Roku or Amazon Fire Stick though? Those are also paper weights once the company decides to stop supporting them - and I'm not aware of any consumer electronics that allows you to install your own software on it. Seems like a strange swipe at Google, even though your complaints apply to all of these devices regardless of brand. For what it's worth - Google's latest phones, Pixel 9, boast 7 years of updates and support.
  • SamBam 2y ago
    I think GP's point was specifically Google's famous history of starting projects and then shutting them down within a few years. Old Rokus still work. My Roku 3600 is eight years old.
    • Alupis 2y ago
      My old Roku is now so sluggish and slow, it's a paper weight and I had to buy a new one. All consumer electronics are designed to be disposable. GP's point was a grievance with consumer electronics at large, not Google's. What other consumer electronics allow you to replace the OS with your own, or receive infinite updates forever? Zero. Chromecast lasted for a decade, and is "dead" only in name. None of GP's statement is on-point for a typical "Google kills things all the time" complaint. If we're going to throw shade at Google, make sure it's about legitimate things.
    • seabrookmx 2y ago
      So do old Chromecast's.
    • vel0city 2y ago
      My Chromecast is 11 years old and still works fine. Sometimes YouTube thinks it can try playing back the higher bitrate 4k version of a video and it'll get choppy but I've never had issues with 1080p content. My older Roku 2 is effectively unusable as most apps are just outrageously sluggish and videos often crash loading.
• wwweston 2y ago
  The real question is why they'd have to be aware. It's entirely possible that those of us who pay attention to this are a vanishing minority compared to the cultural momentum of Google as the default search provider and a dominant provider of email/office SaaS. But even if dissatisfaction is growing, the institional momentum is just so huge that it's very likely Google simply doesn't have the capacity to sense any brand damage even if it were actually occurring at any significant scale. You'd need to have people whose role included a duty to pay attention to this with systems for measuring it reporting to people who take them seriously. Google's never needed those people. It came into the world with a halo of value, primarily knowing the challenges of demand and growth rather than attrition. Much of its management and professional staff are probably largely drawn from the ranks of those who have known more success than challenge, and they are rewarded in such a way that they not only have little incentive to behave differently they may actually have an atrophied sense of the possibility that different might be important, even if they were aware of cultural momentum shifts and were willing/able to persuade others at Google to change how things are done in an enormously successful place. Like Bill Gates said, success is a terrible teacher. Why would enough people at Google think Google has crucial lessons to learn?
  • jiggawatts 2y ago
    I’ve been trying to make this point here on HN and elsewhere for quite a while now, but you said it so much more eloquently than me! I see this as a variant of the tragedy of the commons: in this case it is the reputation and market share of Google Search. Each individual at Google is incentivised to feed their own cow… err… career at the expense of the commons: Google’s reputation. Inevitably this will destroy Google, but this will take many years of accumulated damage to build up to a catastrophic point. “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked. “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
  • _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Honestly, who is going to be comfortable staking their name on adopting Google's AI offerings? I have talked so many people out of wasting their effort supporting it simply by pointing to all the rug pulls Google has done.
• skybrian 2y ago
  I have an original Chromecast and it still works, though pairing it with a new TV is a bit of a pain. The new Google TV is more like a smart TV without the TV. It has apps you install. It's much more complex and not the same thing at all. I was disappointed. But then again every company discontinues products. I don't see that as a breach of trust. It's making up a promise they never made and criticizing them for it.
  • Tijdreiziger 2y ago
    I think you can just ignore the apps and cast like you’re used to, if you don’t care about the extra functionality. (But in that case, I don’t see why you bought one in the first place.)
    • skybrian 2y ago
      Yes, casting from your phone still works. However, it requires a Google login to set up and automatically downloads a bunch of apps you probably don't want if all you care about is playing movies and YouTube videos from your phone. I suppose you could create an account just for this, but you really shouldn't need an account at all. It was a gift for a relative: a "Chromecast with Google TV." I didn't know what it really was when I bought it. Taking "Chromecast" out of the name makes sense. The original concept was great, but I guess it doesn't sell anymore?
      • ssl-3 2y ago
        The original concept was great for some things, sure. I bought an OG Chromecast over a decade ago. It was a one-trick pony: Push "cast" button on pocket computer, and whatever I was doing there would show up on the BFT. Which is great, you know, for a person who lives alone and never has visitors: One can select an item from the slick interface provided by the service they subscribe to on their amazing personal computing device and it appears magically on the big screen. The control buttons are there on the pocket computer, too. It Just Works. However, it is an awful experience for someone who wishes to watch a film together with others: My personal pocket computer is not really set up to be shared with others (and the live screencast function of Chromecast, while functional, has really high latency for interactive tasks). And if someone else wants to pick something to watch using their own personal pocket computer, then they can of course do so -- but theirs is also not meant to be a shared experience, and they won't be able to use the services that I pay to use in my home. So fine. A film is selected, however that is done, and it is playing. But it's time to pause it so someone can use the bathroom. Do I use my phone for my Chromecast for the movie my friend picked on their phone? I already had to hide the buttons from showing up in the notification area of everyone's pocket computer on the LAN, since my roommate kept being a dick and stopping my shit. Or do I have my friend fumble around with this potentially-unfamiliar interface on their own (locked) pocket computer to pause it? What if they stepped away? Do I find the Home app on my own pocket computer, open it, find the devices page, find the appropriate Chromecast device, and then finally fucking pause it? (Fuck you. I just want to go take a fucking piss.) Back then, it was a much better experience in my household to use a PS3 for streaming: It had a regular remote control that -- as a design intent -- anyone could pick up and operate. Browsing possible selections was done on the BFT that was visible to all interested parties. My roommate didn't get a notification on their phone that encouraged them fuck with me from a different area of the house. It was a much better experience for those who didn't live a life of absolute solitude. Today, it's still that way -- except nowadays I have [what is sometimes referred to as] a GCWGTV. It can behave like an OG Chromecast (what UI???), or it can behave like a human-centric streaming device with its own GUI and dedicated physical remote control that anyone can pick up and use, browsing Netflix or Plex or whatever in a manner very similar to what we were doing on a PS3 back in the day. This works fine.
• adamc 2y ago
  I don't buy google devices anymore except for Pixel phones. Everything else tends to be disappointing over time.
  • _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    My Pixel keeps getting worse. The only thing I can count on assistant for is setting a timer (as long as I don't interact with the phone before it takes a pause then says 'starting now', because if I don't wait then apparently I didn't actually want the timer I just requested and it doesn't get set). So, I guess it's 50% on the timer thing too.
• a1o 2y ago
  I think on Google announcement of discontinuing the original Chromecast they mentioned that Smart TVs are ubiquitous now, so this kinda doesn't speak well for their own Android TV like Chromecast 4 and forward being not discontinued too some time soon.
• kozak 2y ago
  I guess I'll have to buy the new Google TV Streamer because my previous Chromecast with Google TV 4K is now close to useless because of the lack of flash memory space after all the updates (despite it has a properly initialized USB drive connected via a powered USB-C hub, the most essential apps still require to be installed on the miniscule internal memory).
  • delecti 2y ago
    Why install apps? It's a Chromecast, just cast to it. I've been using Chromecasts as my primary vehicle on my TV for 8 years, and never needed to install any apps. It seems like it defeats the purpose of the main distinguishing characteristic.
    • kozak 2y ago
      I use it mostly for the "Google TV" part, not for the "Chromecast" part.
• Dwedit 2y ago
  The "Google Chromecast with Android TV" was a stick that was sold for $25, and it runs full Android TV. Google would have to abandon Android TV before it would be bricked. They were sold as cable box replacements, running the YouTube TV app, rather than their ability to "cast" a phone screen to a TV.
  • kyle-rb 2y ago
    It's called "Chromecast with Google TV" and it wasn't $25 until they made the cheaper version that doesn't do 4k. Afaik Google TV is to Android TV what Pixel OS is to Android. Both the "Chromecast with Google TV" and the new "Google TV Streamer" are technically running "full Android TV". Also they were sold mainly as a Roku/Fire stick competitor. Maybe they marketed it alongside YouTube TV but also there's a dedicated Netflix button on the remote.
• kelnos 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure people who used google's web cache comprised a tiny fraction of one percent of their entire user base, and this move doesn't even put the tiniest ding in their brand.
  • b112 2y ago
    Mozilla via Firefox thought the same thing. They removed feature after feature, each feature only used by a tiny fraction of a percent. But all those features were what drew users, power users especially. And users each had their own featured reasons to love Firefox. Now look at them. Most used browser to nothing. There are other reasons too, but what Firefox did was remove what was special about them.
    • DaoVeles 2y ago
      Death by thousand paper cuts in action. I love Firefox (fork) it is my only browser but you can see the long term trend and I do wonder if it will even be a thing in a decades time. Unless there is a sudden shift towards it, is will eventually be relegated to the last of the most devoted geeks as we watch it wither away at the hands of the tech giants running the net. A big thing was when they cut the Servo team that was when I knew they had sort of given up on trying to push forward but merely follow.
      • skinnymuch 2y ago
        The saddest day will be when Firefox switches to a blink engine
        • DaoVeles 2y ago
          I had not thought of that. That is probably very likely. They can keep their public mantra of "privacy" to keep people coming to them but without the burden of tech development. Higher ups like that equation. It is probably inevitable, I mean if even Microsoft couldnt fight off Googles browser dominance, what hope does Mozilla have long term.
• ClassyJacket 2y ago
  Before Stadia came out, I specifically warned people not to get invested in it because Google will just shut it down in 2 years, and all their games and save files will be gone forever. I was dead right, and as far as I'm concerned that's the final nail in the coffin for trusting anything Google makes. Anything that isn't a major core product will be abandoned immediately, it's just not worth the risk. Unfortunately my TV is built on the Google TV OS, which probably means all smart features will be unusable in six months.
• kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
  > Is anyone at Google even aware how much this hurts their brand? Their finance bros don't care about anything they can't measure. Mission accomplished as far as they're concerned.
• fuzztester 2y ago
  bro, do yourself a favor, and go meditate in the google graveyard. https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/ for how to do it, see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara%E1%B9%87asati https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara%E1%B9%87asati make sure to read it fully, including all the links, recursively. and https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=17516&start=20 https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?t=17516&start=20 https://damsara.org/interesting-new-findings/solitary-night-time-meditation-at-the-cemeteries/ https://damsara.org/interesting-new-findings/solitary-night-... just kidding. but really, do you seriously think that people in companies do things for any reason rather than their own benefit? do you? nope. nyet. nahi. nada. coz everyone is that way.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• bananapub 2y ago
  > Is anyone at Google even aware how much this hurts their brand? yes, of course. there will be outcry on eng-misc@ about it now it is in the news, and when it was first suggested that Search do this, someone will have found the plan and circulated it and it will be widely understood that this will be terrible for the brand of Google Search. and then some exec will have written some nonsense email explaining how it was important as a cost saving measure and to secure "IP" for "pivot to AI" and that'll be the end of it. it's extremely weird that HN posters assume Google employees aren't aware of things happening in the world, or don't predict the very obvious consequences of VP decisions.