On Stadia and other Google failures

Google Stadia
My Pablinux partner posted the news so I take this opportunity to talk about Stadia and other Google failures. I know that i'm getting heavy on the subject, but Google's decision demonstrates what I have been arguing in my articles on Thursday. Due to many questionable practices and abuse of the dominant position of the big technology companies, the consumer still has the last word and, the consumer is not so easy to manipulate.
Stadia joins a long list of failures in which Google's insistence on promoting them first in its search engine and putting them without asking on Android did not help.

On Stadia and other failures. These are the causes

Pablinux says:

About three years ago now, my partner Isaac wrote a file titled “Google Stadia Sweeps; Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have nothing to do…». And the truth is, it's not like he was an ill-advised starter. It was what seemed to be happening.

At the time I didn't think much of the release and I have no idea if it would have coincided with Isaac, but one thing is for sure. I should have realized that I was going to be a failure and the same would have happened with anyone who has studied Marketing in college. Nearly every course in the world uses Philip Kotler's book and, Kotler makes it clear that there is only room for three major competitors in any market.

In the video game market there were already Nintendo and Sony who had been on the subject for decades. Then Microsoft joined them.. Those who had spent a lot of money on a console and on buying games would hardly invest in new hardware to be able to use their browser. And, those who did not have a console would not have done it either. If they were gamers enough to pay Google's asking price, they would have already bought a console.
Let's look at other failures that prove the rule

Hangouts

Messaging client launched in 2013 and included on almost all Android devices until Google discontinued it in 2019. People preferred to ignore it and download and install WhatsApp. And for those who didn't like WhatsApp, there was Telegram.

In any case, insist on Google Meet.

Google Plus

East Google's attempt to compete with Twitter and Facebook it never got off the ground even though it was online for 6 years.

Google Allo

Google's fixation for failing with messaging clients should already be studied in psychology faculties. Google Allo was just that. The official excuse is that its features were incorporated into the Android messaging application that hardly anyone uses either.

Google Spaces

One more attempt to get people to use their platform to communicate. Is group discussion app it lasted only one year. Guess he preferred to use people?

Google Talk

If there's one good thing to say about the people at Google, it's that they don't accept defeat easily. East another failure in a messaging application snapshot lasted from 2005 to 2017.

Google Code

Again an attempt by Google to compete in a sector where there were already well-established options. In this case the of hosting of open source collaborative development projects. At that time the leader was SourceForge and later GitHub and GitLab appeared with huge improvements. Still, they only gained users when the SourceForge owners decided to advertise the installers without consulting.

Google Code lasted from 2006 to 2016

hangouts on air

A live streaming platform released a year after Twitch. Years before, there were other platforms such as Ustream, Justin TV, DaCast, Veetle, Bambuser, Livestream or Blogstar.

With very good judgment, Google incorporated these functions into YouTube, although its crazy copyright policies made many users migrate to other platforms.

Picasa

photo sharing platform which existed between 2002 and 2016. Google ditched it in favor of Google Photos, though from the looks of it, people still prefer Facebook.


The content of the article adheres to our principles of editorial ethics. To report an error click here!.

2 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

*

*

  1. Responsible for the data: AB Internet Networks 2008 SL
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   Darkwing said

    “It would be difficult for those who had spent a lot of money on a console and to buy games to invest in new hardware to be able to use their browser. And, those who did not have a console would not have done it either. If they were gamers enough to pay what Google was asking, they would have already bought a console."
    ——————————————————————————————————————

    And here is the problem that Stadia has failed as such, most people have not understood what Stadia is, what its business model is and it is due to its lousy marketing and launching it without making it easy for developers to carry out ports to your platform.

    To demystify a bit, you didn't have to pay anything for the hardware because it wasn't necessary, more than in the beginning. On the other hand, they had a limited catalog of games and, on the other hand, a non-mandatory subscription with which you could claim the games of the month and play them as long as you had the subscription active. In addition, it provided 4k resolution and 5.1 sound.
    With a computer with VP9 decoding, you could play the games without any problem, either with a keyboard and mouse or with the controller you had at home using a chromium-based browser. In addition, some amateurs made two extensions to improve the experience while Google was implementing them very little by little and not all of them. On the other hand, you could play without problems from a mobile phone with a controller or on the TV if it had a Stadia application or through hardware that had the appstore.

    Therefore, the obligatory thing to pay for were the games (and obviously an internet connection), without the need to spend the money on a console or upgrade your PC to play the latest releases.

    What failed, not having a clear target and marketing, a lot of haters on the networks that misinformed the average user who did not investigate or was curious to see what it was and ruled out in my opinion, that in the end they have used it as a pilot project and now they will sell this technology as a service to third parties. I wouldn't be surprised if Ubisoft launched its online platform in the medium term through this technology in its own ubisoft connect app. At the time they already subcontracted it to ATT in the USA with the Batman Arkham Knight game first and after removing it they offered their clients Control Ultimate Edition. Both games were never published on the platform despite being ported.
    Luckily, they have said that they will return the money spent on games and hardware (optional Chromecast and controller) through their store.

    And with this I don't want to defend Google, what's more, I don't like their policies and it's a shame they killed the platform, but their technology was good and they will surely pay it off.

  2.   Miguel Rodriguez said

    I do not like Google, nor is it to defend it, however, in your article you commit a Fallacy of Authority (Argumentum ad Verecumdiam, also known as Magister Dixit)

    "Kotler makes it clear that there is only room for three major competitors in any market."

    It's not because Kotler says so, there must be reasons behind his statement. On the other hand, if we investigate a little Kotler and his contributions to Marketing, it could be said that Google's biggest mistake is its Marketing strategy, because come on, if even a man was able to convince people for 6 months to buy rocks to have them of pets, Google, in my humble knowledge and experience has not been given so much to the task of making all its services known, but also to advertise them *create value*, something important that Kotler points out is that in the current Marketing no longer it's enough that in version 1.0 where almost all companies are located, of launching a product and advertising it, waiting for people to buy it, today there are more tools available to consumers to judge the quality of a product even before use it, so highlighting its benefits and how it differs from the competition, knowing its strengths to exploit them to the target audience is vital for survival and even the positioning of the company. the product. Something that happens with Mozilla, which now seems to be full of twitter snowflakes with ex-university students who ask for safe spaces, with some other worker who perhaps thinks that all corporations (even the one they work for) pay misery, they steal and exploit them . It also happened with Sega, by the time Sega announced that it would no longer develop any more consoles for 2002, already in 2001 Microsoft ventured for the first time with XBOX, and did it well, with good Marketing and very original games, so much so that could still be found for Windows, Sega had little and almost nothing of Marketing with its Dreamcast console, even less with its video games for this console.