Okay, why should Google support a dead platform? They attempted to release a product to market; the market overall showed disinterest at best, and outright hostility in some cases. Commentators both professional and enthusiast largely dunked on it with as much mockery as their platforms would allow.
I feel this issue stems from Google not committing to many things they make for very long, or making too many similarly designed projects and launching them along their already existing products. For the standouts like gmail, maps, etc, their bread and butter... those are here to say. But with a lot of other projects they come up with that people enjoy, they cut them down not too long after.
Well as network improve the viability of the product will increase and it might eventually get to the point where it'll be fully viable. The money they spend on it is already gone but they might have been able to recoup cost in like a decade or so. Keeping it on life support in the meantime would have allowed them to react quickly and keep other company at bay.
Google's got a long history of swaggering up with promises of "changing the face of the industry", and then stubbing its toe on a rock and running away to hide in a corner. Google Fiber would say "hi" if it wasn't basically comatose.
I forgot that even existed until you mentioned it. Which only further highlights the problem with Google. I wonder what the next disaster going to be. Another grave to be filled.
The underlying contention of it all might just be the ineptitude of leadership in making the decision to start the bloody thing in the first place. They were merely bandwagon reacting to the latest trend kinda like all the motion control stuff from Nintendo’s contemporaries after the success of the Wii.
killedbygoogle.com
The problem with 3D was even after Cameron did something better and the best with it, most others didn't do much with it other than mediocrity, or trying to prevent people from pirating a movie. Most of it was your typical conversion 3D, and a majority of that was not that good. I know by the time 2013 rolled around, I was more than sick of 3D and would always pick a non 3D showing when available.
Good call. The biggest problem with Stadia is that Google didn't differentiate themselves where it really mattered. Effectively, the basket they put all their eggs into was one of "you get less for a lower price." Yeah, you didn't need to pay $500 to get in, potentially saving yourself some shelf space for the houseplant you've been shuffling around for years, but after that, it was the same nonsense with less utility, i.e.: $60 games from a limited library, the "ownership" of which is completely reliant upon a connection to the internet through their very specific channels. They tried to sell renting as a convenience over a mortgage, but showed up with mortgage prices. It was completely stupid.
Stadia was the "solution" to a "problem" that wasn't a problem. Given the climate of gaming over the past several years, I think the last thing anyone was troubled over was the need for a console/PC to play modern games. If anything in that vein, it has been trying to make consoles as functional as/competitive with PCs, not that consoles needed to go away so we could all game from the Cloud.
In an ideal world, yes. I will give Netflix credit for offering a better deal by comparison, even if they're still having some trouble. I'm happy for them and everything, but it's a service I know I definitely don't need. And given the numbers, a good amount of people feel the same last I checked.
