[thesuperbigfrog]

>> Stadia failed as a business, not as a product or technical solution.

Stadia failed as a business because it failed to get adoption by developers and gamers / users.

It failed to get adoption by developers and gamers because Google has a reputation for killing things.

Google has a reputation for killing things because it's leadership does not have a vision outside of advertising and its internal culture does not reward long-term maintenance of products.

>> I don't see this culture that HN seems so convinced about.

It started with Google Reader and has become ever more obvious since then.

When Google launches a new product, observers in tech make bets about how long the product will be around before Google kills it.

It has become a meme: https://killedbygoogle.com/

[sofixa]

> Stadia failed as a business because it failed to get adoption by developers and gamers / users.

Nonsense. It failed to attract developers because it was an unsure new platform so of course most of them wouldn't spend hours to develop for it. They were always going to need convincing (with money of course), which took Google too long, but around a year or so in there were multiple heavy hitters in the form of Red Dead Redemption 2, Hitman, Ubisoft's entire catalogue (and an Ubisoft+ integration), EA Games' most new games, Destiny 2, alongside a ton of indie games. By the time Stadia shut down, it didn't really have a catalogue problem. Problem is, Google bungled the rollout and took too long to start doing this - they banked on the initial release being highly successful, but didn't start massively investing in games until later on.

For gamers, fear of Google shutting it down played a part, of course. But so did all the extremely negative coverage, from everywhere, that Stadia is dead on arrival which only reinforced that fear. Had Google actually told everyone their shutdown plan (reimburse everyone for all games), a lot of gamers would have overcome those fears (what was there to lose, really?).

Technically, the platform was amazing. To this day the best UX by far of out cloud gaming platforms. Quality upgrades were lacking though.

To sum up, Google failed in their strategy and marketing. Had they 1) promised to reimburse everyone in case the platform was shut down before X years 2) given away Stadia Premiere packs to anyone they can (like YouTube Premium subscribers, etc.) 3) enticed big studios to port games, all things they eventually ended up doing, Stadia would have been a roaring success and would be undergoing a hardware refresh at the moment. Instead, it just reinforces that Google sucks at b2c and shouldn't be trusted.

[thesuperbigfrog]

>> For gamers, fear of Google shutting it down played a part, of course. But so did all the extremely negative coverage, from everywhere, that Stadia is dead on arrival which only reinforced that fear. Had Google actually told everyone their shutdown plan (reimburse everyone for all games), a lot of gamers would have overcome those fears.

It is a self-reinforcing vicious cycle. Stadia was yet another demonstration of how Google has developed its current reputation.

>> Technically, the platform was amazing. To this day the best UX by far of out cloud gaming platforms.

That's what is so sad. Google's tech is amazingly good, but their user support and reputation are terribly bad. Bad enough that, in many cases, it breaks the business.

[amf12]

> It has become a meme: https://killedbygoogle.com/

That is exactly what it is: a meme. Look at most products / services / hardware on there. A lot of entires are things that have newer version, were renamed or merged with other services / products, or features included in core products.

Some were discontinued, but they didn't have enough use. Only a few user loved products were discontinued: Inbox, Reader, etc.

[jsnell]

> It has become a meme: https://killedbygoogle.com/

Yes. It being a meme is exactly the problem. It just gets repeated over and over with no regard to the facts, in a kind of positive feedback loop.

If you did the same for Google's peer companies like Amazon and Microsoft (using the same criteria and same level of obsession), you'd find that the Amazon Abattoir is doing brisk business and the Murdered by Microsoft website would need pagination. But for whatever reason, when those companies launch a product, their past failures are not trotted out. When they inevitably kill their failures, the reaction is "about time, nobody used that product anyway" rather than the mass hysteria.

This is Google Glass! A product 99.99% of HN readers would have claimed was killed a decade ago. "Killed by Google" has been claiming it was dead for a long time, but I'm sure will now dishonestly find a way to double-count it.

[Zarel]

I suppose "nobody used that product anyway" is way more true of Microsoft's dropped projects than Google's, and that's important.

Everyone here can name Google products they loved which they can't use anymore. For me, the big ones are Google Reader (RSS), Google Inbox (bundles, and the Travel and Shopping email categories), Google Now (flight information), and Google Hangouts (SMS integration).

For other companies, not so much. I can name minor things, like I miss macOS's old 2D virtual desktop grid. And an AirPort router would have been nice. And I'm sad Amazon Go is being shut down. But nothing on the level of those Google shutdowns.

[codyogden]

> "Killed by Google" has been claiming it was dead for a long time, but I'm sure will now dishonestly find a way to double-count it.

I haven't gotten around to it yet, but my plan was to merge Google Glass entries. The holy trinity of Google Glass Explorer Edition, Glass OS, and Google Glass Enterprise Edition will become "Google Glass."

[2muchcoffeeman]

Holy Cow. I don’t even know about most of those products!

[danpalmer]

I completely understand the "google kills products" meme.

I just think that "google doesn't reward maintenance" doesn't lead to "google kills products" except in very general examples. For the most part Google is maintaining products, that's most of what most people do.

The reasons for the killing of products are I think much more nuanced and numerous.