Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aunche | Hacker News Reader

Stadia is a perfect example of Google's risk aversion. Microsoft invested billions on the XBox from the start, and spent over a billion dollars just to buy Minecraft, but Stadia didn't make an effort to secure even a single AAA exclusive. The same goes for YouTube exclusives. Netflix and Amazon spent hundreds of millions on flops like Marco Polo and Rings of Power. Meanwhile, the only notable series that came out of YouTube was Cobra Kai, and even that got sold off despite being a cult hit. In retrospect, this was the correct business decision as all streaming platforms seem to be hemorrhaging money, but you can't expect to win big with that attitude either.

View on HN

My favorite anecdote about Microsoft's Xbox strategy is that the original Xbox was a net loss of about $4 billion, and they considered that to be a huge success because that's just how much money it takes to muscle your way into an industry like gaming.

The problem is that Google’s core business model is too profitable, that nothing else can ever compete for attention and resources.

But you’re right, they need to take the burn for awhile until escape velocity. I think they did with YouTube in general until the ads money hit.

They’re also more geeky and not that creative of a company, nor do they really get design, so some of their blind spots can hurt them from time to time, although that’s separate from their AI issues which yes they have bungled their lead do to fears of the feds.

>>The problem is that Google’s core business model is too profitable, that nothing else can ever compete for attention and resources.

I'm guessing their OKR's go on the lines of building billion dollar businesses or nothing at all. And 'nothing at all' winning at the end.

Very common at large companies. When I was an IT industry analyst I remember talking to someone at IBM about some new business initiative and they basically said if it didn't have serious potential to grow to a billion dollar business at some point, it wasn't interesting.

At large companies, there are just so many costs associated with attention, management effort, and everything else even if an initiative is sort of run "as a startup."

These execs actively kill businesses because in their minds it is either moonshot or nothing.

Its strange because they look at something that makes $200 million an year and think I am better off making something that makes a $1 billion than $200 million. They now shut down the $200 million product, but never succeed building $1 billion product. Net result is after a while you are -$200 million.

Do this with a few products for a few years, you are now just a pie in the sky dream company with no real products and actively shutting down things that bring in money.

> The problem is that Google’s core business model is too profitable, that nothing else can ever compete for attention and resources.

Interesting, that's essentially Dutch disease[1] for a corporation.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease

Microsoft learned the hard way that the platform doesn’t mean anything if you don’t have the games to bring people to it. It’s why they’ve spent billions left and right to acquire studios and publishers.

It's also why Microsoft is downright legendary when it comes to Windows backwards compatibility.

They are very aware Windows is nothing without the literal decades of software available for it.

Hardcore gamers are basically a niche market. Not a trivial one as with power users of other types but how is Apple doing without (other than casual) gamers?

Console gamers are a niche market? I think you're statistics might be a little broken.

I had no idea Cobra Kai started with YouTube.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com