I hate to be an apologist for Google, so please don't take it that way, but this reporting is dog sh**.
Developers gamble on a platform's stability even more than consumers do. Consumers might trust a service with their data or spend money on hardware, but developers can spend months building an app for a platform. They need to read documentation, set up SDKs, figure out how APIs work, possibly pay developer startup fees, and maybe even learn a new language. They won't do any of this if they don't have faith in the long-term stability of the platform.
There is a stark difference between a platform, product and App. Hey dopey, nobody is writing Apps for Apps. Google+ and YT Annotations and 95% of everything else they list in there has nothing to do with developers, nor could it.. so no, devs are not shaking in their boots. What a retard.
"...developers can spend months building an app for a platform... ...They won't do any of this if they don't have faith in the long-term..."
...and seeing as most of the actual "platforms" where developers could use API's, that got axed, lasted for 7-8-9-10 years. I would say that developers should be happy with their results. Maybe the author should have another column lambasting Microsoft for cancelling MSDOS, or Apple for the Lisa II. Putz.
Hardware manufacturers and other company partners need to be able to trust a company, too. Google constantly asks hardware developers to build devices dependent on its services. These are things like Google Assistant-compatible speakers and smart displays, devices with Chromecast built in, and Android and Chrome OS devices.
OK, so which piece of hardware from a developer no longer works? It's a red-herring.. Google killed
production of their OWN Chromecast Audio device... only because "Chromecast" already does what people want and more for what, $35? Did Google kill Chromecast all together or stop audio streaming? No. Did any 3rd party developers get hurt? No. Do Chromecast Audio devices still work? Yes.
Imagine the risk Volvo is taking by integrating the
new Android Auto OS into its upcoming Polestar 2: vehicles need around five years of development time and still need to be supported for several years after launch.
Don't forget Audi and Fiat, too, which already have new models in production with Android Auto
OMG, IMAGINE THE RISK! Yeah, because the alternative, Apple's CarPlay, has been just an outstanding example of "no-risk"? Apple CarPlay, the platform that doesn't allow 3rd party apps(No risk there, for sure!).
Let's see what the public consensus of Apple CarPlay is:
CarPlay has seriously ruined any experience I have with any any factory infotainment system now
How Apple CarPlay made me hate my iPhone
Apple CarPlay.. Why does it suck so bad?
CarPlay sucks or what?
Sick and disgusted: The worst tech failures of 2018
APPLE IOS 12 CARPLAY: DOESN'T PLAY WELL WITH OTHERS:
Users rejoiced when they heard that iOS 12's CarPlay would finally add support for third-party mapping and navigation apps, such as Google Maps and Waze. But then we found out that they would not be treated like equal citizens in the same way Apple's Maps does and would not have hands-free support for third-party intelligent agents such as Google Assistant as their preferred voice control (as opposed to Siri).
Ah, that must be the stability the 3rd party developers are looking forward to, as the author suggests.
Meanwhile Google is:
Off the back of the news that
Google will allow third-party app developers to get their hands on Android Automotive, the tech giant revealed more details overnight at its enormous tech conference, Google I/O 2019, that may shake Apple to its core
With so many shutdowns, tracking Google's bodycount has become a competitive industry on the Internet. Over on Wikipedia, the list of
discontinued Google products and services is starting to approach the size of the active products and services listed. There are entire sites dedicated to discontinued Google products, like
killedbygoogle.com,
The Google Cemetery, and
didgoogleshutdown.com.
A competitive industry of tracking failures? What, for the 8-12 items in a year? LOL! I hope they don't hurt anything while updating their website databases! There are entire sites dedicated to many other companies and their failures, cancellations and antiquity. Whoopdy doo!
I think we're seeing a lot of the consequences of Google's damaged brand in the recent
Google Stadia launch. A game streaming platform from one of the world's largest Internet companies should be grounds for excitement, but instead, the baggage of the Google brand has people asking if they can trust the service to stay running.
Why should a game-streaming service be grounds for excitement? Are there other examples of game-streaming? Were they exciting or are they almost defunct? How are Steam and NVIDIA's streaming services doing from 2014? Hmmm.
How did the author determine that, "baggage of the Google brand" is the problem? Is there a problem? Who is asking, "if they can trust the service to stay running"?
There doesn't look like there is a problem.
Maybe a better question would be, if the author was a real reporter, "Why would 'Gamers', the target audience, want Stadia?". It sucks.
Maybe people don't like the idea of paying 2x or 3x the cost of a Console(or more) with permanent games to only lease a Stadia license... all at worse frame rates and latency. Maybe that? How about the fact that not everyone has Gigabit fiber service to their house... nor wants to pay the high rates for that service... further adding to the cost of "game streaming".
As for Inbox.. sorry, what a piece of garbage. Most of the time the emails I wanted to see were buried under a bunch of emails I didn't want to see. What's up with the Social Media look where I can only see 1 or 2 "emails" at a time? Then it always wanted to show me "old things" "on time" - like bills.. F that. When my bill comes in I want to see it and plan for it and pay it.. I don't want Inbox holding it back for 12 days only to notify me that a bill is coming due in 3 days. All of the useful features of Inbox have been in Gmail since 2017.
The author of the column keeps saying and inferring that "Google kills loved platforms and projects before their time and without warning"; says this for Inbox... but...
Speculation of Google killing Inbox came as early as 2017 and Google announced they would be killing Inbox due to lack of users in September of 2018 - plenty of warning:
https://www.androidheadlines.com/20...s-google-killed-inbox-over-lack-of-users.html
Approximately a quarter of its stateside user base launches Inbox at least once per day, with its number of daily active users averaging around 850,000 people over the last week and no significant changes in this regard being observed compared to August. While those metrics may imply remarkable user loyalty, Inbox has actually been losing momentum for some time now, with its user base shrinking by nearly two-thirds over the last twelve months alone.
Ouch. 850,000 per WEEK, out of hundreds of millions of users. That's only 121K per day.
I keep getting told that were all Capitalists, but when it comes to things like Google.. Eh, F capitalism... Google should do *this* and *that*
'cause I like it. Screw shareholders or performance numbers and evidence we have a failed product - make it anyway! Mmmkay! So, we're all voting for Bernie Sanders then, right? I kid I kid!
From the author under the 'How Did We Get Here?' section: "Google's strategy of having multiple teams" is a bad thing.. as if companies in general don't have "multiple teams". LOL! Isn't that basically the structure of a Corporation? A collection of individuals, divided into groups, working on common but often different goals?
FIRE BAD! GOOGLE , BAD!
