Nus trivia News a.i. video

With Tesla's Elon Musk and Rivian's RJ Scaringe, we have the Henry Ford and Alfred Sloan of electric vehicles (TSLA, GM, F)

9 reasons you should buy the standard iPhone 11 instead of an iPhone 11 Pro or 11 Pro Max (AAPL)

Why you should buy the $1,000 iPhone 11 Pro instead of the more expensive iPhone 11 Pro Max (AAPL)

A mathematical technique originally developed to help build the atomic bomb is now used to figure out how much CEO pay packages are worth — like with Elon Musk

Totallee launches super thin cases for iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, and 11 Pro Max - 9to5Mac

Apple is neglecting the MacBook in favor of the iPhone 11 – and that could cost it dearly - TechRadar

Google has adopted the smartphone formula that made Apple's iPhone so successful in the first place (GOOG, GOOGL, AAPL)

Apple is neglecting the MacBook in favor of the iPhone 11 – and that could cost it dearly

iPhone 11 vs iPhone 11 Pro comparison: Which should you buy? - 9to5Mac

Amazon Is Crowdsourcing Alexa’s Answers. Smart Tactic or a Questionable Move?

App code hints that Google might launch a Pixel 4a alongside the Pixel 4

The world’s most freakishly realistic text-generating A.I. just got gamified - Digital Trends

Compared: 2019 iPad 7th generation vs iPad Pro vs iPad Air & mini - AppleInsider

Daily Deals: Preorder Final Fantasy 7 Remake for $49, Preorder the new iPad for $30 Off, Get the new iPhone 11 and More

Leaks reveal Surface Pro 7 configurations ahead of Microsoft event - TechRadar

MIT boffins turn black up to 11 with carbon nanotubes that absorb 99.96% of light - The Register

One year after killing off its premium Apple Watch, Apple is bringing it back with a new version that costs as much as $1,400 (AAPL)

IoT devices still major target for cyberattacks

Oracle OpenWorld to shed light on next-generation autonomous cloud capabilities

Microsoft's dual-screen Surface device may use liquid-powered hinges

Google still has no idea how to pitch Stadia

Date published: 2019-08-21
Originally published: Here. Excerpt below.

Yesterdays Google Stadia Connect stream fell flat, and Google is going to have to find a way to do better if it wants anyone to stay interested in the service.
The event focused on games, and only games, which meant that Google showed a series of trailers for games we (mostly) already knew existed. That game you want to play? Why not buy it for a streaming service you cant get yet!
Google is going to have a hard time selling people on Stadia this year, and this latest misstep isnt going to make it any easier.
How do you pitch Google Stadia?
Its a good question, and I dont have a good answer. The value of Google Stadia isnt in the games youll be playing on it, but how youll be playing them. And Google tried to explain those details in its first announcement event, but many of the details sounded like word salad and it was hard to understand exactly what the company is selling, and why people would want it over a traditional console. Getting someone to understand the pricing structure or even the broad details of Stadia isnt an easy task.
The basic pitch is that you can enjoy games with amazing visuals, without lengthy downloads or patches, and without having to buy a PC or a console. You will be able to play every game you buy on Stadia on many of your existing devices like your laptop, smart phone, or tablet as long as you also have a fast internet connection. The product that Stadia is selling is freedom, more or less. The service, if it works as advertised, will do a lot of cool things.
Of course, you actually doneed to buy a bundle to use the service at launch, so that kinda muddies things. The ability to just buy the service, or even play Stadia games with lower-quality visuals without having to pay for the service, is coming later.
Its a difficult marketing challenge, because were so used to thinking of mandatory internet connections as a bad thing, something that limits how we can play our games, and now Google is trying to sell us that requirement as a service. Its being presented as a good thing, a step forward. But its going to take some reprogramming to get players to go along with that, especially when the initial cost of entry is $129.99.
Stadias biggest enemy may be YouTube
And then there is the fact that many people couldnt even stream yesterdays presentation in standard resolutions without getting hiccups or stutters. Google owns YouTube, and that product has been around for years. If Google cant even deliver streaming video at a lower quality than what its promising for Stadia, what hopes does it have to successfully stream games?
The counter-argument is that Stadia is being built from the ground up to do exactly that, and being a new product means that it doesnt have the tech debt or compromises that often come with older, mainstream services like YouTube. But that sort of nuance is hard to get across when youre exhibiting poor performance on one service while trying to sell people on the idea that this new service youre asking them to pay for will be able to do it well. And people noticed.
No matter your feelings on the actual product, Google Stadia announcement livestreams having buffering/lag issues will never not be funny.
Tom Marks (@TomRMarks) August 19, 2019
Reassuring people that the service will work as advertised, and explaining how, as simply as possible, is a huge challenge. What Stadia is trying to do is complicated, and other companies have tried and failed to make game streaming work as a service. None of them have had the infrastructure and resources of Google however. But thats a hard argument to make to players before they can try the service for themselves. Thats Stadias marketing challenge, and so far Google has been failing miserably at it.
The problem here is Google imitates the presentation style of traditional console companies.
No clear communication what sets Stadia apart.
We know Mortal Kombat 11 is cool, we've seen Superhot footage 100 times. We don't need a Stadia livestream for that.
Dr. Serkan Toto (@serkantoto) August 19, 2019
Games are important the service cant survive without them but focusing on the games right now doesnt help players understand why they should pay for Stadia. Showing off footage from games that have already been announced without giving release dates for any of them on Stadia makes it seem like the service is already old news.
And for a service that charges a monthly fee, on top of charging you full price for games that will only work on Stadia, the game list just isnt that great yet. It feels like a dangerous investment right now.
And thats the sort of fear that Google needs to be fighting, especially when its competition is talking about launching streaming services that make a lot more sense for players. This is a great comment on the Google Stadia stream that shows why Microsoft is in such a better position than Google when it comes to streaming:
Microsofts option of having free streaming from your home console with the games you already own is much more interesting to me for example. I dont need to buy a game on a platform with no history, and I also know that if the streaming platform dies, I still have a device I can play in offline mode for example. If Stadia stops existing, what are you getting? Youre also completely dependent on the platform. Worst case with Microsofts I have to get in a better signal strength area or just go home, with Google if the problem is on their end there isnt anything else I can do.
Right now Google Stadia has a limited number of games with few solid release dates, and Google has a history of ending services that dont gain the necessary traction. I can still play Xbox 360 games even though Microsoft doesnt actively support the platform anymore, but Stadia goes away completely if Google leaves it behind.
Microsoft, and likely Sonys, options for streaming services are going to be much stronger if they can offer streaming for titles that also work like traditional games without an internet connection. They both know how to play this game, but Google is struggling to communicate the effectiveness of its own offering.
Maybe getting customers isnt the point yet
Its possible that there isnt a way to really sell people on Stadia yet, and the initial $129.99 bundle being offered this year is a way to limit the number of people on the service while Google tests performance and server load. Showing off games at this point may make Google look silly, or even ill-prepared for launch, but Im not sure theres anything better to be done until everyone can try the service for free in 2020.
Thats going to be the real challenge: Getting people to try it, and making sure they like what they see enough to continue paying. 2019 may be little more than a beta test, and Google is mostly focused on getting the name and idea out there more than worrying about paying customers. The company has the money and the ill to take the long road to success, if it chooses.
Google Stadia is an interesting service with a lot of potential upside, but focusing on non-exclusive games gives the impression that Google has nothing else to talk about. Meanwhile, discussion of the possible downsides dominate social media. There is a good way to promote Google Stadia, but yesterdays presentation was not one of them.

Related stories

India's Chandrayaan-2 and Vikram lander split amicably above Moon, SpaceX hops over Texas - The Register

Rocket Report: Iranian launch failure, SpaceX rideshare business booming

Explore more stories...

Continue reading story: Here.

Today's top stories on

Other trending stories

Tell us what you think!

Apple TV+ May Support Downloads for Offline Viewing, Limit Simultaneous Streams - MacRumors #Apple #TV #Catalina

— NUS Trivia | tech news (@NusTrivia) August 21, 2019