It's the random little things they build too many of and hence close down. They never really understood branding. Slapping Google on everything doesn't help, it hurts. Many things are actually experiments and shouldn't be marketed as more than that.
Google on Stadia:
October 2019 - "It is a long term view that Google is taking"
November 2020 - "roadmap of about 400 games in development right now from 200 developers [...] 2023 is really kind of where we’re aiming our sights"
February 2021 - "building Stadia into a long-term, sustainable business [...] remain committed to Stadia as a platform"
September 2021 - "gaming is an incredibly important vertical at Google"
November 2021 - "eager to continue working on bringing the best games and new features to our community of players so that we can help build a bright future for cloud gaming"
February 2022 - "we are still focused on bringing great games to Stadia in 2022 [...] more feature goodness coming to Stadia too - stuff we can’t talk about just yet"
September 2022 - "You might have seen one last game arrive on Stadia today. It's a humble :heart: thanks :heart: for playing from our team."
https://www.theverge.com/2022/9/30/23378757/google-stadia-co...
Bonus comment from Google regarding Inbox:
"With respect to the upcoming Gmail announcement, there are no changes to Inbox by Gmail. It remains a great product for users with specific workflows and one in which we test innovative features for email."
I believe they had to make concessions with the UK to somewhat outsource the cloud gaming aspect of the deal so that it could go through. This was something they didn't seem to want to do but also forced them to extend their merger & pay additional dividends to shareholders of Activision.
Many of the current services are likely running at a loss, hoping for the hype-train to get people into it.
The reality is, most people wanting to play AAA titles either have a console, or a gaming computer already
The cross-section of people with a 10 year old macbook, that want to play the latest AAA title, have expensive high-bandwidth internet, and are willing to pay ~$30+ a month is just not that large.
> The cross-section of people with a 10 year old macbook, that want to play the latest AAA title, have expensive high-bandwidth internet, and are willing to pay ~$30+ a month is just not that large.
This is frankly an idiotic summary of what you believe to be the cloud gaming addressable market.
Google is not a charity. If something is not working out financially, or the market has failed to grow at the pace Google initially thought, it is in their best interest to exit that market and re-allocate resources. You know... like any rational business.
> This is frankly an idiotic summary
Well then perhaps you can enlighten us on why the market has failed to materialize? $2.5B for 4+ industry-heavyweights to fight over is pathetically small.
The R&D costs alone to deliver this type of service likely outweigh several years of total industry revenue... yet each of these companies is trying to blaze their own path more-or-less independently.
In short, there is no addressable market, and the numbers clearly tell us that. Do not be surprised when more of the players exit this market as well.
Just because you love a service doesn't make it a reasonable or sustainable offering.
Correct, Google can't be trusted to commit to a product long-term. Even a product with paying customers.
> Well then perhaps you can enlighten us on why the market has failed to materialize?
Because like I said, it's a young market. It has absolutely enormous upsides for those that can win it.
> there is no addressable market
This is laughable. You're a clown.
> Just because you love a service
None of the cloud gaming vendors have ever even offered the service in my country. I have no dog in this hunt.
It's no wonder you're so upset.
You still cannot explain where the market is, or why the existing services are being forced to raise prices and cut hours already... but hey, you want it therefore you're owed it, right?
That's the TAM.
Think about it... exclusive access to a 4090 GPU for up to 5-8 hours a day for $18? Isn't going to happen. The electricity alone will cost more than that to operate over a month.
That does not even factor in a relatively expensive high-bandwidth internet connection that a lot of the world doesn't have... and you still need a device capable of consuming 1080p, 1440p, or 4K content in near realtime - ie. it still has to be a relatively capable system.
The economics are dubious, to say the least. Emerging markets without a lot of average household disposable income is probably where this type of service will excel - and even there we're already seeing price increases and cuts to maximum daily playable hours.
Maybe it works in a "We're too polite to disrupt whatever political game you're playing in the hopes that you'll reciprocate when we splash obvious bullshit when we play ours." snakepit that seems to be most of Google, but out here, we're unchained by that political nonsense.
Bonus chatter: We get that you'd like die for your coworkers or whatever, but as people who have no social (or political) investment in either the services or how they're made, these "But they're run by GOOD, PASSIONATE people! I have personal experience with this!" appeals are simply irrelevant.
Most people and companies don't do things which aren't in their interest after stating they will. It isn't a Google thing.
Company culture can help predict what interpretation a company will pick.
Google's culture is much more trigger-happy about interpreting killing off a service as being in the company's best interest than Amazon is.
Internal folks knew google would walk away in a few years if it didn't work. Stadia was largely a group of people out of the failed and left behind Daydream (VR) project.
The whole reason why Google cannot be trusted here is precisely because of their tendency to be inauthentic in their public statements.
And then they'll turn it off as casually as you or I might turn off a garden tap.
Stadia was a classic reason I couldn't trust GCP or any Google product aside from Gmail cause I've been using it so long, because unlike you I'm NOT in the know, I just see a bunch of stuff spun out, hyped (calling it 'little stuff' is a highly subjective assertion) and axed without warning. And I won't mention what an absolute mess the android development journey has been, a related symptom of a haphazard, disorganized product strategy. These things are uniquely Google, and it's a terrible look.
I haven't been in the know for years, but I learned enough - don't look at what they say, look at where the money is. It's the same for almost every company.
Product strategy is a mess at most companies. The developer experience sucks for most products. Stripe built a multi-billion dollar business off of developer experience because the standard experience sucks so bad.
No thanks.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204423...
Look at page 12.