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.

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.

"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.

Nobody cares. But it isn't revisionist to say it was an experiment. It was correct, albeit not understood by people who believe at face value what companies say.

So we as customers need to read tea leaves in order to figure out which services Google considers "real" and which are "experiments"?

No thanks.

No, just read the financials. It takes 20 seconds.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204423...

Look at page 12.

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.

You don'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.

Unless competition picks up and they have to cut prices and stop being profitable.

And then they'll turn it off as casually as you or I might turn off a garden tap.

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.

There is a reason contracts, contract law and the court system all exist.

Most people and companies don't do things which aren't in their interest after stating they will. It isn't a Google thing.

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.

You've missed the point - it 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.

There are always a myriad of potential actions that a company could potentially interpret as being in its best interest.

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.

You were just able to articulate what I hated about Google. Thank you.