Google very clearly stated in no uncertain terms that Stadia was a real product that they were committed to for the long term. Stating, after the fact, that it was "actually" an "experiment" or a "random little thing" is not just dismissive - it's pure revisionist history.
Yeah... Google employees just _do_ that sort of shitty redirection, and it's obnoxious as fuck.
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.
No one is saying Google has broken contracts or the law. What is it with you Google defenders and your constant goalpost shifting? We are saying, Google is not to be trusted with claims like "we are committed to this product" because they have been caught in that lie several times before. Why are you going on about contract law and "most people and companies"? What you're saying is irrelevant.
The point is: don't expect companies or people to act against their interests. They generally haven't, don't and won't. Google isn't unique here. The problem is so pervasive in society that humans created contracts and courts to force people/companies to do things they wouldn't otherwise do.
What folks at google think and what they say publicly aren't the same thing. It's naive to think otherwise. Look to what actually makes sense for them to do and you'll have your answer.
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.
So why are we to believe statements that GCP is here to stay? They are, after all, statements to customers who need to hear it to make the purchase. But who knows how they actually think?
The whole reason why Google cannot be trusted here is precisely because of their tendency to be inauthentic in their public statements.
I wouldn't believe anything they say. Just look at the numbers. They aren't going to walk away from a business doing about $35 billion per year run rate, growing at 20%+. It isn't in their interest to do so.
"Internal folks" who gives a rats ass about what they think? A company's reputation has little to do with how people on the inside perceive it, its actions and track record do the talking.
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.
Agree, nobody cares. But it was pointed out in response to a suggestion it's revisionist to say it was an experiment. It was correct (ie it was an experiment), albeit not understood by people who believe at face value what companies say.
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.
