Understanding The Fourier Transform - <AUTHOR> http://www.altdevblogaday.com/2011/05/17/understanding-the-fourier-transform/ <comment><USER2> The Fourier Transform can also be thought of as part of Linear Algebra, because it's actually funding a representation of a given function in the basis consisting of sin and cos functions (or complex exponentials).

See, the collection of non-pathological functions is a vector space. We add elements by adding the functions pointwise, we multiply by a constant in the obvious way, and the other requirements can be checked. Functions form a vector space.

And vector spaces have bases. One basis for the vector space of functions is the collection of sin and cos functions. Thus we can see that finding the Fourier Transform is just finding how much of each basis vector we need to make the function.

And as we know, the amount of basis vector u needed in the representation of a vector v is v.u, the dot product.

Thinking of it this way starts to make connections between all sorts of ideas.

 _Added in edit:_ I see the same sort of point made by dropdownmenu in <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4862228>

<comment><USER3> This is a great explanation.

The only thing that I still can't get my head around or visualize is how it is that we know that the set of all cos and sin functions is _sufficient_ to span this set of "non-pathological" functions.

So assuming some vector v _is_ reachable by a linear combination of vectors u1,u2,u3... we know that each component should be v.u1, v.u2 etc. But how do you _know_ that v is in fact "reachable" by some combination of vectors in the basis u?

That is, suppose I describe some (infinite) set of a functions. How do I determine the set of functions that it spans? Is there an intuitive way to picture _why_ the set of sin and cos functions forms a suitable basis?

<comment><USER2> This was Fourier's big theorem, that every periodic, non-pathological function is "simply" the sum of phase-shifted sine waves of all necessary frequencies. You can remove the "periodic" if you allow infinitely many frequencies, and so on. The phase-shifting is taken care of by having a sine and a cosine at the same frequency, but (possibly) different amplitudes.

So start with a periodic wave and look at how much sin(x) is in it. Do this by integrating:

        Integral from 0 to 2.pi of f(x)*sin(x) dx

That's a dot product of your function _f(x)_ with the sine wave, and that tells you how much of the first frequency you need. Subtract off the result, and then go again with _sin(2x)_. You find the residuals get less and less. More, for something nice like a square wave or triangular wave the coefficients you get form a predictable sequence.

Interesting note:

        integral sin(k.x)*sin(m.x)

is 0 if k != m, and 1 otherwise, so the basis elements have dot-product 0, and hence are thought of as being at right angles. They also have "length" 1, since the dot-product with themselves is 1. So they are an ortho-normal basis.

So the question is: what functions can be reached by adding and subtracting multiples of sine (and cosine) functions of different frequencies? In Linear Algebra terms, what is the space of functions spanned by these basis functions?

That's harder, but it turns out to be "everything non-pathological".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series#Hilbert_space_in...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series#Hilbert_space_interpretation)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert_space#Fourier_analysis>

 _Edited for typos_

<comment><USER3> ah thanks for answering the other questions I hadn't gotten around to asking (the reason why it's an orthonormal basis).

I think I need to go home and have a play with this now!

<comment><USER4> For an orthonormal set, one also gets another answer to your question: how can you see how much such a set spans?

Theorem: If S is an orthonormal (or even orthogonal) set in a Hilbert space V (here, L^2 functions on R/Z), then put S^\perp = {v in V : v is orthogonal to every s in S}. Then the span of S is (S^\perp)^\perp. (The containment of the span in the double-orthocomplement is formal; the other direction requires a supplemental theorem on the geometry of Hilbert spaces.)

With this in mind, we see that S is a topological basis (spans everything) when S^\perp = 0; so, to show that the sine and cosine functions span, it suffices to show that nothing (non-0) is orthogonal to all of them. This still requires computation, but at least it's easier to imagine doing this than somehow finding a Fourier series for _any_ L^2 function.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really liked where he color coded the equation and the sentence describing how it worked. I've seen tables in the past explaining what each variable represented, but this was much clearer.

[http://altdevblogaday.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/05/Derived...](http://altdevblogaday.com/wp- content/uploads/2011/05/DerivedDFT.png)

<comment><USER6> I nearly got the light blue and green confused, and I have normal color vision. I think there are reasons to prefer tables, or perhaps something animated or interactive would work as well. (e.g. mouseover a term to get its description.)

<comment><USER7> > _I nearly got the light blue and green confused, and I have normal color > vision._ //

Define normal.

I have some difficulty differentiating blues and greens sometimes but I found those shades to be quite distinct even on a low quality screen.

Perhaps your colour differentiation is worse than you think? It could be down to monitor settings though, for example.

There's an Ishihara test here - <http://colorvisiontesting.com/ishihara.htm> FWIW but I'd imagine you'd need to see an optician to do it correctly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is an interesting way to visualize it, but I think the only way to really grok the Fourier transform is to use it in several different applications, and understand its role in each.

A particularly helpful tangent is to play with convolution and see the many different applications that is useful for (did you know that the shadow cast by an object is its cross section convolved with the cross section of the light source?). Once you really _get_ convolution, and really _get_ its relationship to the Fourier transform, you will be well along the path to enlightenment.

</comment><comment><USER9> You can also think of the Fourier Transform as a projection (dot product) of a signal onto the space of all sinusoids. That's the explanation that made everything click for me.

<comment><USER10> I like this way of thinking about it, but I think it is not quite accurate for discrete Fourier Transforms. In this case, we're not projecting onto the space of all sinusoids, only the space of sinusoids whose period is a multiple of (1/N). We could probably prove (if we wanted to try) that those form a basis for the vector space of N-long complex vectors, so using any more sinusoids would be redundant.

However, I believe the continuous Fourier Transform works exactly like that.

<comment><USER9> Very true, and if you want to be more specific my definition only works for finite duration continuous time signals with finite second moment. I use this definition as it also works well for understanding other transforms such as the Laplace transform.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If someone (like me) is having trouble visualizing, <http://dave.whipp.name/tutorial/fourier.html>

</comment><comment><USER2> You might be interested in the discussion from one of the previous submissions of this:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2555562>

Here are some other items about the Fourier transform:

[http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=title%3Afou...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=title%3Afourier)

</comment><comment><USER12> You can also think about the Fourier Transform in terms of its physical properties.

For example, the Fourier transform is behind quantum uncertainty (dp.dx>h). Think of it this way: the inverse Fourier transform of a frequency impulse (zero extent) is a sine wave of infinite duration. Truncate the infinite sine wave and its spectrum ceases being an impulse, broadening into the shape of the windowing function used to truncate the sine wave. That is, an attempt to constrain/define time leads to a broadening in frequency, and vice versa. The uncertainty principle naturally arises from using the Fourier Transform in an environment where "you can't have infinities".

This is true of any two variables which are related by a Fourier Transform. Yes, position and momentum are related by a Fourier transform (as are energy and time).

The thinking also works for the other extreme: if you consider how a time impulse (zero extent) related to its Fourier transform, a flat spectrum of infinite extent on the frequency axis.

<comment><USER13> "That is, an attempt to constrain/define time leads to a broadening in frequency, and vice versa."

That is also a really well phrased one line point of commonality to talk to a telecom / RF / EE type person about communications bandwidth theory. If you just wedge in signal to noise ratio / bit error rate, and look at what you phrase "time definition" and "frequency broadening" in the right way, then you pretty much have Shannons famous paper.

The FT shows up all over the place in science and anywhere you find it, you can analogize it into a totally different field of study. One "design pattern" hundreds of "implementations".

<comment><USER12> That would be a nice topic for a website: to encapsulate and present the duality present in any number of fields.

A major barrier to understanding any new field is being able to strip away the jargon and recast the ideas into a familiar form. One can envisage website, where you tick the field(s) "A" that you want to learn about, tick the field(s) "B" that you already know about, and it recasts field(s) "A" in terms of the terminology of field(s) "B".

Make it have a "plug-in" structure, so supporting a new field is a matter of writing a mapping of field specific concepts to a set of "design patterns". Make it open source, so experts can jump in and contribute mappings for a wide variety of fields. Getting fancy, mappings could be written in terms of any two fields (so the expert does not have to learn a set of web-site specific design patterns), and the software could construct a graph to allow conversions between arbitrary fields.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My preferred way to think about it is in linear algebra terms: your signal of length n is an n-dimensional vector. Now you just need to change the coordinate system into fourier basis, which is made up of vectors of length n who's entries are sin/cos waves of different frequencies. The way you change basis in linear alebra is by doing a dot product with the basis vectors you want to transform to, and it's no different here... it's just a projection of your single point into fourier basis and that's all the formula says.

The fancy e^i stuff is just for mathematical beauty and compactness and should be avoided when explaining the fourier transform, imo. There's absolutely no need for it as far as the idea goes, just do the sins and coses separately.

<comment><USER15> If, however, one wanted a similarly intuitive explanation of the e^i part of the story, I recommend these two articles in order. They explain the hand wavy part about complex numbers and rotation: [http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive- guide...](http://betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive-guide-to- imaginary-numbers/) [http://betterexplained.com/articles/intuitive- understanding-...](http://betterexplained.com/articles/intuitive- understanding-of-eulers-formula/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you want to solve his original problem, detecting treble and bass energy in an audio signal, you might want to read up on the Goertzel algorithm. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goertzel_algorithm>

For limited numbers of bands it will use less battery power and be faster.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is a nice way to see how the DFT is computed, however I find the view of the FT as a change of basis as even more important - generalizes easily to other bases and and one can understand easily wavelets and their advantages. Basically, the sinusoids form a basis of the vector space of functions (every 'non-pathological' function can be written as a possibly infinite sum of them) and the numbers computed by the FT are coefficients for the respective basis vectors - the magnitude of these coefficients is interpreted as the strength of the corresponding wave in the original signal.

Another way to see the FT is as the basis where the convolution operators are diagonal - this is used in image processing, where computing the FFT of a filter + entry-wise multiplication can be much faster than running the convolution at each pixel of the input image.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is a pretty good intro to DFTs. I was excited to see that others were also motivated by the connection to music and math! I looked into this quite in linear algebra in college and found Benson[1] and Smith[2] to be really thorough and interesting resources on the topic. Hope they help others!

1\. [http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/mth192/pages/html/maths- music.ht...](http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/mth192/pages/html/maths-music.html) (free pdf)

2\. <https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/mdft/> (skip down to applications and the digital audio number systems for a preview)

</comment><comment><USER19> Here is an attempt at an easy-going, matrix-oriented discussion of the FFT, together with quite a bit of motivation:

<http://home.gregfjohnson.com/fft>

Here is a really terse "just the essence" ruby implementation of the FFT:

<http://home.gregfjohnson.com/fftruby>

</comment><comment><USER7> When I first came across Fourier transforms I just thought of it as a bunch of sine and cosine waves destructively/constructively interfering. Could be because we derived FT in class starting by matching sine/cosines to intersect various points.

</comment><comment><USER20> I got an idea how and why dft works from prof.Wilf(RIP) <http://www.math.upenn.edu/~wilf/AlgoComp.pdf> see from page 50 on. He approaches it from the algebraical side

</comment><comment><USER21> I found this amazing lecture on youtube.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0Sa8fLOajA>

(Gilbert Strang - my first time watching him teach. Such a great paced lecturer)

</comment><comment><USER22> That's so conceptually simple I hate myself for not getting it before.

</comment><comment><USER23> I would like to see more of these articles cover the phase portion.

<comment><USER24> What do you mean?

<comment><USER23> The imaginary part of the transform.

<comment><USER17> The article uses the magnitude of the coefficients, which is computed using both the real and the imaginary part.

<comment><USER25> The phase portion isn't actually just the imaginary part, it's just the piece of information lost when one goes from real+imag -> magnitude, i.e. it's the argument of the complex number.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Last Jedi Grosses Are Collapsing – The Worst Daily Holds of All Star Wars Movies - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/22/last-jedi-daily-grosses-are-swiftly-collapsing-the-worst-holds-of-all-9-star-wars-movies/ <comment><USER2> The Star Wars franchise has always had, at its center a story of hope and the eternal mythos of the hero's quest.

TLJ has given us cynical deconstructionism in its place.

What did they expect?

</comment><comment><USER3> These charts are looking at percentage drop from day one, but that doesn't tell you much since the opening haul could be vastly different from one movie to the next. The Last Jedi had a huge, explosive opening, and now has dropped slightly faster than expected. So what? Is that because the movie sucked? (It didn't IMHO.) It that because other big movies are coming out soon after? It that because this year has had problematic box office returns generally? Who knows!

That's the thing about statistics...they're so easy to spin to make a pitch for almost any viewpoint. Clearly the author of this article wants you to think The Last Jedi is a dud. I'm not sure why. At any rate, I definitely don't see this as an objective news story.

<comment><AUTHOR> It did 43% less than the Force Awakens on the second week, so yes it is a dud when compared to its siblings. (apple to apples comparisons).

If the next Mercedes E Class Model has 43% less sales than its predecessor, then yes it is a dud and if I was in management i'd be worried.</comment></comment>


The Alibaba Crash Course - <AUTHOR> http://alibabacrashcourse.com/

<comment><USER2> I would have upvoted had there been a preview, quote, or something but for now you get my email address anyway.</comment>


It's Official - Microsoft Doesn't Understand Visual Novels - <AUTHOR> http://nawegr.blogspot.com/2012/12/its-official-microsoft-doesnt.html

<comment><USER2> The feedback from the reviewers seems pretty straight-forward and easy to fix. I may have misunderstood something, but I don't see the approval process as being all that burdensome. Judging by the frequency of your blog posts, it looks like you've been hearing back rather quickly. Isn't it a different story on Apple's AppStore? I hear of devs waiting ages to hear back.

Maybe get a good night's sleep, and try again tomorrow. You only have to fix your screenshots, right? You're so close.

<comment><USER3> What will fixing the unbroken screenshots actually do? The novel has multiple paths which were depicted in the screenshots. If the reviewer only goes through one path, then they will not see all of what's depicted in the screenshots.

What is the fix? How do you know the developer is "so close"?

<comment><USER2> Ewan went 99% of the way in making the app. If the only thing holding him back is getting the screenshots right, I'd say he's "so close".

I'd wager that most of Microsoft's app approval team is away the week between Christmas and New Years. If the submission was routed to someone overseas where Christmas isn't as big a deal (so they weren't on vacation), that would explain the miscommunication. I would just resubmit now that presumably everyone is back from vacation.

Apple closes the App Store to new submissions over the holidays. At least Microsoft was open.

I'd be interested in seeing a screenshot of the main menu to see the 3 choices he mentions.

<comment><USER3> I think the tone from his blog posts is that this might not be the last thing. He is probably right. Close can only be determined if you know the rules.

What the heck kind of review process plays all the way through a game? What if you had a 100 hours of content or secret rooms?

If it was routed to someone overseas and they have lesser abilities to communicate with developers, then Microsoft should have just closed submissions for the holidays instead of causing frustration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> To ALL HN readers: It's a troll post(some guy's personal rant) just to get more clicks on the ads at the sides and bottom. P.S - Someone please flag this from the frontpage!

<comment><USER5> I have adblock on, and so didn't see any of the ads you're referencing. When I initially read the post, I found it to be an informative and insightful look into the Windows Store process, something which I currently know very little about.

Knowing now that there are ads on the page, I don't think they devalue the post unless they are particularly invasive or offensive.</comment></comment>


When will Google shut down Stadia? - <AUTHOR> http://stadiacountdown.com/ <comment><USER2> A good model will be to start working on a new startup with a competing product as soon as google launches something. In couple of years when they shut down, provide migration paths. Swim in $$$.

<comment><USER3> I wonder about the damage Google does to any potential start ups in a field.

How much buzz can you get when everyone's first thought is "how could this be any good? Google already tried that and failed..."

<comment><USER4> I don't know, Google has failed at all kinds of products that other companies have achieved massive success with. This includes some really ubiquitous tools like a social network (Google+) or messaging apps (too many to list). I think at this point most people assume a failed project from Google has more to do with the company than the concept itself.

<comment><USER5> A few days ago I was researching a bug I was seeing using with xfce on chrome remote desktop. Apparently this was thoroughly solved in someone's Google+ post that everyone linked to. All I can see now is the Google+ termination notice. Thanks, Google.

<comment><USER6> Google was one party in that. The other was the person who choose to gave Google the content to post. When we choose to give content and power to a few, large, centralized organizations, that's on us.

<comment><USER7> What would you have expected them to do? Would you point to the user if Stack Overflow stopped hosting content? Or GitHub? Before places like imgur, I'd see forum postings linking to broken images hosted on personal sites--so self hosting is unfeasible. Geocities data is still around as well as Usenet postings going back to the 80s.

<comment><USER8> > Stack Overflow

... which licenses its content with CC by SA 4.0[1] and has a public API.

Other licensing models of content will vary.

[1] [https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/stack- exchan...](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/stack-exchange-and- stack-overflow-have-moved-to-cc-by-sa-4-0)

<comment><USER6> This is an important point. Someone else is allowed to use the StackOverflow content and likely would if StackOverflow was turned off.

<comment><USER7> I do think that is worth noting, but it is (mostly) separate from the original point. It doesn't matter if the copyright is open if the content disappears.

At least in the U.S., I don't think it's that relevant to the use-cases I've seen. IANAL, but in the 4-factor fair use test a place like Internet Archive rehosting the content to me easily clears 3 of them if the original host goes away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I understand the cynicism of this community to Stadia but implore you all to think a little broader.

Stadia is different, with this product Google is trying something really innovative. For one, the fact that Stadia actually costs money should be a signal of Google's long term ambition here. Yes, Fiber also cost money but was bogged down by the hell that is infrastructure development.

Stadia will require a substantial engineering effort from Google to make this work. The latency and network requirements are a great test to gauge network requirements as we move into 5g, AR, and self driving cars.

Gaming is huge and if Google can be the first to provide (viable) steaming as a service they can really threaten some of the incumbents like Twitch, Sony, Microsoft, etc.

Obviously Google doesn't have the best track record here but I'm excited to see them tackle this challenge.

<comment><USER10> Glass cost money, more than 10x what this cost, and that was not a signal of their long term ambition.

The problem with Stadia is that it costs money, the service costs a monthly fee, and on top of it you have to buy the games. What happens to those games if you stop paying the fee? If you stop using Stadia? If Google deprecates Stadia like many are worried. I'll tell you: you lose the game.

If I, conversely, buy the same $60 game on Steam, I know it'll be there years down the road, that I'll be able to play it on any PC I build, and I don't have to maintain a monthly fee for it.

What Google is trying has been tried many times before, by people who had more permissive game ownership structures.

Do not tell us we shouldn't be worried about using such a product from Google given their track record -- _especially_ when the costs to them are enormous in terms of computing power and the reception has been very tepid (meaning those costs are larger per-user than they likely anticipated).

<comment><USER11> > "...it costs money, the service costs a monthly fee, and on top of it you > have to buy the games."

WHAT? I've been under a rock and I assumed that it was a service where you buy a controller, already own a streaming device (or maybe the controller has the device in it), and pay monthly for the whole service. You have to buy the games too?

That is an immediate about-face for me. If they shut down the service then I just stop paying the monthly fee. This is perfectly comfortable for any service. But if I have to buy-in to every game...

<comment><USER12> I agree, if they had launched a subscription service to a large catalog of games that would have been really something -- like how Netflix created an alternative to the buy/rent single titles model.

I suspect they didn't have enough clout with development studios to create that pricing structure.

As an example, Assassin's Creed: Odyssey is $59.99 on Stadia ($39.99 with subscription for 4K). On Steam it's currently $59.99 too, but at 4K without the extra subscription.

Game distribution is a hyper-competitive market right now, with Epic Games in particular giving away high quality games for free every week on their Steam competitor and paying developers up front to get timed exclusives.

I think Google's going to have to re-visit its pricing and customer acquisition model on this one.

<comment><USER13> It's entirely possible this is just a licensing thing. The early days of legal movie and music downloads were an expensive mess too.

I'd expect after a few years of game streaming competition someone will try to undercut the market with a Netflix model.

<comment><USER14> Microsoft is curenlty alpha testing its xcloud service by the looks of it, which encompasses exactly that. There is also the Nvidia streaming service too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Google's different brands remind me of MSFT of the early 2000s. No rhyme or reason. More chaos and throwing spaghetti at the wall. No issues changing or deprecating APIs and products like this on a whim.

They certainly dont inspire trust in anything but their flagship brands like Gmail that have been with us for decades.

<comment><USER16> > _They certainly dont inspire trust in anything but their flagship brands > like Gmail that have been with us for decades._

Even Gmail is a giant blob of garbage.

<comment><USER17> There is a hamburger icon (top-left), 9-dot icon (top-right), gear icon (top- right) and 3-dot icon (top-left). What do they all do? (I actually know).

<comment><USER18> And that's before you open up the compose field. To this day I click the wrong button _every time_ when I want to forward an email. Every time. Despite knowing I do it every time, I still click the wrong one.

<comment><USER19> Huh, I imagine that internally nobody notices this type of problem because they all use keyboard shortcuts and hit 'f' to forward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Honestly, as soon as Google announces a new product, my first thought is to wonder how long until it is shut down. Google has completely lost my trust in relying on any of their products. Even when they come out and claim that this product will not be cancelled, for reals this time, pinky promise, etc. I simply can't believe them.

<comment><USER21> Aside: Costumers, er prospects rather, love my products until the end when they ask, "so... how many people work there?"

As though that would indicate how likely it is that the product will have a long life. They are telling me with that question they want my software for a long time. But when they hear the answer they bail.

I still don't know how to get over that hump.

<comment><USER22> You'll have to find some early adopters who are willing to take a risk in order to solve a critical business problem. Once you have those few reference customers, additional sales become much easier and you can afford to hire more employees.

In the short term try offering to put the source code in escrow so that if your company fails the customers can take over the product themselves. This reduces their risk a little, at least for large enterprises with competent IT departments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What is going on with Google?

I used to think Google had the best product team in the world. In some ways I thought they defined what modern product management is/was.

Now I have no clue what they are thinking with their product launches as of late. All of their products (and marketing) invoke this conservative, risk- adverse blandness that tries to appeal to everyone and in turn appeals to no one.

<comment><USER24> Maybe I'm crazy but I've never thought google had a good product team. Has there ever been a coherent vision for their collection of products?

Edit: just to be clear. I'm not saying google doesnt have good products. I use and enjoy lots of them but for a long time it has seemed like even google isn't sure how all their products fit together. Perhaps that leads to weird forays into territories that don't fit which then results in shutting things down.

<comment><USER25> Has a Google product ever been good?

\- Search (was once good, now just "marginally better than Bing")

\- Reader (was good, the highest profile victim of Google Death Syndrome)

<comment><USER26> > Has a Google product ever been good?

Uhhh...

Maps? Mail? Pixel 2 and 3? Fi? Sheets?

Sure, their Cloud doesn't sell as much as Amazon's, but it's been praised as being a much more coherent product.

Not sure how anyone could argue that Google hasn't gotten it right several times.

<comment><USER25> Maps, thanks. Still pretty good.

I agree with none of the others.

<comment><USER27> I'm just one anecdote, but I love FI and my Pixel 3.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The criticism of Google Stadia _and_ the defense of its concept in this thread are correct.

There is a successful future in cloud gaming and nobody denies that. However, it's extremely likely to be delivered by a company with both the technical chops _and_ industry chops, including a deep existing library. Google only has one of those, and they didn't even nail the technical side convincingly.

Look toward Microsoft or Sony instead; all the pieces are there for them to waltz in and drink Stadia's milkshake. And we know they're working on it. It's Disney+ all over again.

<comment><USER29> Take MSFT game pass and back it on cloud servers. Almost all the games run on Windows, their own OS, and can be optimized for whatever datacenters are on the way out from enterprise apps but with some GPUs tossed in.

I'm over simplifying but I'm sure MSFT has a plan out there if they wanted to move forward after seeing how Stadia works out.

<comment><USER30> MSFT has more than a plan. [https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game- streaming/project-xclou...](https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game- streaming/project-xcloud)

Both platforms are at similar levels of maturity, actually, with similarly limited support for platforms, controllers, and games. Microsoft just hasn't had the audacity to charge for their beta test.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> With Stadia's "negative latency" technology, it's like it's already shut down.

<comment><USER31> FPS games have had this for a looong time. In Quake 3 it's called timenudge and you can have it set to a negative value which means that the client will predict the opponents movement before receiving the next packet from the server.

The CPMA mod then came up with even better adaptive prediction in their netcode.

Without some prediction opponent movement would be jerky depending on the other players ping. The downside is that sometimes shots don't register which are a clear hit on your screen and sometimes weird flick shots hit which are far off the target.

<comment><USER32> Fighting games too via things like GGPO.

Not to mention even fighting games like Melee have a little local input lag, which you can then remove and use to hide network latency online.

<comment><USER33> Really good article on this topic: [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/10/explaining-how- fighti...](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/10/explaining-how-fighting- games-use-delay-based-and-rollback-netcode/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Very surprised of general negative sentiment towards Stadia. Why is it like this? Because it's Google, the evil company?

Seriously, if any startup launched it in its current state, people would be cheering and blaming it on a new tech/new challenges. But cause it's a very big corporation with top talent it means that they have to release top quality product every time? What the hell...

I'm very excited about the project, although not really interested in it at the moment. I don't think its target audience is hardcore gamers, so why all of you are so over dramatic? Possibly, feeling happy that "real" gaming isn't going anywhere anytime soon?

Obviously, there are problems and challenges, but I'm pretty sure that sooner or later it will get better. That's what the MVP is for, isn't it?

<comment><USER35> >if any startup launched it in its current state, people would be cheering and blaming it on a new tech/new challenges

I'd direct you to a review of Onlive, a previous startup doing exactly what you say[1]. The take away is exactly what I've heard about Stadia:

"OnLive's streaming game system is a really cool concept, and the ability to access a library of games with no downloads, discs or storage worries is definitely cause for excitement. Some gamers will be put off by the occasional lag, though, and the list of currently available games isn't hugely tempting.

Still, OnLive is an exciting proposition, and it costs nothing to try it out. It probably won't suit you if you're pernickety about lag and image quality, but we'd recommend checking it out nevertheless."

I personally think that, after seven years, Google seems to be in the same place as a much smaller company, speaks to why it feels disappointing to me.

[1] [https://www.cnet.com/reviews/onlive- review/](https://www.cnet.com/reviews/onlive-review/)

<comment><USER36> I hadn't heard of OnLive until there were comparisons to Stadia. On the other hand, Google is able to do some great first party advertising on YouTube.

<comment><USER37> OnLive was kind of a big deal when it was announced. A lot of poeple used it and tried it. They "gave" some games for you to play for free and test it out. Also, Sony did a few things similar on Playstation but was never a huge success because of the technical implications.

<comment><USER38> I remember playing an OnLive demo of a (then recent) Mass Effect title. I was picky about both image quality and lag, and I was not in a top-tier city. I was very impressed! Unfortunately, the problems with the business model remained.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> This makes me shed a solitary tear for Google Reader :'(

And another solitary tear from the other eye for Google Inbox :,(

<comment><USER40> >And another solitary tear from the other eye for Google Inbox :,(

To be fair, Gmail has been my primary email since early 2009 and I'd never even heard of Inbox until people on Leo Laporte's podcast started whining it was going away.

<comment><USER41> I am surprised to hear this because I OTOH thought Google's attempts to corral people into Inbox when it came out were obnoxious. The app notifications, the Play Store nudges, etc. I tried it since I got the impression from the nudges that maybe Gmail was going to get knifed; I hated it and went back to Gmail.

<comment><USER33> Yeah, that's how I found out about Inbox, and switched to it away from Gmail on my phone. Then they killed it and I'm back to Gmail. I learned my lesson and ignored the notifications begging me to try Duo instead of Hangouts. Now Duo is dead (hooray, I dodged a bullet) and I guess they're killing Hangouts for no reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is a grammatical nitpick, but I see it over and over and over.

The title says "When Will Google Shutdown Stadia?"

It should be "Shut Down", which is a verb phrase. A "Shutdown" is a noun, eg, "There will be a shutdown in March."

Another common example of this:

        You need to log in.  (long in == verb)

        What is your login.  (login == noun)

<comment><USER28> Embrace descriptivism or be forever an annoyed curmudgeon.

<comment><USER43> I don't understand the internet's new obsession with descriptivism. Yes, it's English, in a circular-argument kind of way, but that doesn't make it good style.

The whole takeaway from it seems to be that self-described descriptivists intentionally use non-standard definitions of words then blame the other party for misunderstanding, making the writer fail at the primary goal of communication. And that is literally ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I really don't get the hate... I'm reading that in general UX is pretty good. I only have a Switch so haven't been able to play RDR2 or AC Odissey... The solution seems perfect for me given the price point and I'm seriously considering picking it up.

When I worked for Nintendo we broadly called the segment I'm in "lapsed gamer" and it's actually a pretty big niche...

What I read between the lines is that people are pissed that Stadia doesn't address the "core gamer" demographic well (this kind of reaction is recurrent - see the Wii!), but might this not be a _great_ go-to-market strategy?

<comment><USER45> >I really don't get the hate...

Not really hate but more people are so dazed by google's "product" zigzagging that it's hard to take it seriously anymore. Google managed to induce massive amounts of cynicism in their users.

e.g. Remember Google+? The thing that got shut down? Couple weeks ago I get a corporate email saying please update your profile pic on google+.

1\. I thought it's dead.

2\. What profile? Did you guys create a profile for me on a dead product?

3\. Or did they keep the corporate version alive?

4\. What about google currents? Google+ pages? Different things? Same thing but renamed?

I don't bloody know. And no I'm not updating my profile pic dear HR. Google will kill it in 3 months time and/or launch 2 clones or relaunch it with a lick of paint anyway.

It's the same with all their other stuff too. Their chat thing I use every day? It's got 3 different interfaces with different functionality and I don't even know what it's currently called. Hangouts? Meet? Google Chat?

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> There's an easy product fix for this. Offer every game purchase with the option for a one-time key conversion, ideally managed through the game publisher. In the event of a Stadia shutdown you could easily port your purchase over to another single platform of your choice. This stragegy de- risks the platform and would go a long way toward alleviating consumer fears.

We saw similar strategies around the launch of Steam. Sure you're just buying a download code, but if you send us $5 for postage we'll mail you a physical disc to go with it. Same concept.

<comment><USER47> This. I would buy games on it in a heartbeat if they did this.

The problem is that, to move them to a new platform, for example Steam, they need to pay the platform's cut of the sale price. To give users the option to do this in future, they would need to keep all of the revenue they get from selling games in reserve to possibly do this in future. They would have to do this by charging users what it cost. I think it'd still be attractive though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I feel that we are a little bit too hard on the big G on this one. They simply have their own inner startups, which they kill if product gains no traction.

We should look at how many startups from YC die within 4 years and make the comparison. I might be wrong, but the ratio could be very similar.

Still, Stadia will fail for sure ^^

<comment><USER49> "No traction" for a Google product just means it's not the next Search or Gmail.

It doesn't mean that zero people use it. Thousands or millions of people used Hangouts, Google Reader, Google Code, or Picasa - they'd have been considered big YC successes.

If big YC companies all got shut down if they failed to turn into another letter in the FAANG acronym, maybe people would become reluctant to use services from YC companies.

I still use some Google services, but I check out my data on a regular basis, I'm not buying a Fitbit, and I'm not subscribing to Stadia because I want those things to last longer than I think Google will keep them around.

<comment><USER50> >Thousands or millions of people used Hangouts, Google Reader, Google Code, or Picasa - they'd have been considered big YC successes.

Other than google reader I doubt any of these would have gotten traction at all without big g behind them.

<comment><USER51> Picasa: Smug Mug/Flickr is rather highly valuated again today, now that they are free of the curse of Yahoo! Instagram and Snapchat are a part of this game now too.

Google Code: GitHub sold to Microsoft for a good chunk of change. GitLab, Bitbucket, Source Hut, all seem to be doing fine.

Hangouts: Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, WeChat, Facebook Portal, Matrix/Riot.im, iMessage, Skype is maybe back from the dead depending on who you ask (certainly not kids, though). It's almost easier to ask who _isn 't_ in the Messenger game right now. The fact that Google managed to fumble _two_ huge market share leads between Google Talk and Hangouts is maybe only equaled by Microsoft's multiple, complicated fumbles of MSN Messenger and Skype.

<comment><USER50> I'm not denying that the market exists. I'm denying that the product google launched in these cases was comparable to the competition. Google code, for instance, was SO inferior to github that comparing the two is actually kind of funny.

<comment><USER51> There were people that felt Google Code to be quite advanced for its time, with comparisons at the time more to SourceForge, Savannah, Trac, and some others that have past into the mists of time. It didn't keep up or maintain any of that "lead", but that just circles back around to the common aphorisms that Google loved big splashy launches and failed to incentivize steady maintenance or competition after a "product" launched.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Cloud gaming is solution looking for a problem. It's not customer demand driven. Nobody want's cloud gaming (at least not yet).

They haven't shown anything compelling why this would be a game changer for end users.

The games are not more fun or unique than on any other platforms.

Any of the cloud arguments also hold for consoles or PCs on internet connected games.

I think the site may be a bit optimistic.

<comment><USER53> I want it, but I want the Netflix model. What I don't want is to buy games fullprice on their platform. Let me pay 10 bucks a month for a rich gaming catalog that I can play on anything from Mac, to phone to tablet and I'm going to use it.

<comment><USER54> I think it will take some time for an effective business model to evolve that works for games. Games don't exactly follow the lump-sum, zero maintenance model of movies, but they also don't work well with the SaaS treadmill either.

Some games lock players in and absorb their time continuously (e.g. Overwatch, PUBG, WoW, etc), while others package a digestible block of content that can be consumed in 10, 20, 50 hours, and then it's done. Subscription payouts based on proportional screen time would drastically favor the former over the latter, while lump-sum compensation flips the tables since it doesn't consider ongoing server and infrastructure costs needed to make multiplayer work.

I think this "Buy your games, and subscribe to them too" model that Stadia is using is how they're trying to split that baby, but given that nearly every other service is either subscription or one-time purchase, I have a hard time seeing it stick around long-term. Then again, some console systems also function that way, so I might be wrong.

<comment><USER55> [https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass](https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox- game-pass)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Brutal, but fair given the track record of so much out of Mountain View. I've always detected a certain sense of tragicomedy about Google; their money- printing ad machine is something they've always seemed to feel deep shame about, which drives (and also pays for) all these other things that they give up on when they realise they'll never come close to that kind of commercial success again.

<comment><USER57> Something similar is true about Microsoft in that it's had a few core products that have been big hits (Windows, Office, ...) and then to satisfy investor's growth expectations they plow the profits into other lines of business which often fail (Windows Phone, Hololens, Microsoft Band, ...) or stagger on marginally (XBox).

Azure is the latest big hit.

Somehow Microsoft has adapted to this reality with some grace, they even balance it with the "Who moved my cheese?" attitude of its customers.

<comment><USER58> Surface is a huge hit AFAK

<comment><USER57> I don't know if it makes money.

It's certainly helped push Dell and the like to improve the build quality, thermal engineering, etc. on their laptops.

On the other hand, the whole "Windows Tablet", "2-in-1", etc. hasn't been a big hit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> "Google kills all their products" is a bit of an overused meme trotted out at any launch... But for Stadia it's a pretty legitimate concern, I'd say.

The model where you're still "buying" the games ties you to the ongoing operation of the service much more strongly than in many of their services where an eventual migration might be a little painful, but it's still possible.

The counterargument would be that they've deployed a ton of network capacity and GPU resources for cloud computing anyway, and so Stadia is just riding on those coattails... But it's certainly not a promising track record.

<comment><USER60> > _The counterargument would be that they 've deployed a ton of network > capacity and GPU resources for cloud computing anyway, and so Stadia is just > riding on those coattails... But it's certainly not a promising track > record._

Exactly, in fact, Stadia is really just a way for Google to subsidize their cloud GPU buildout. Do you think those expensive GPUs are sitting idle in the meantime? No way! They're crunching numbers or spot instances for AI/ML workloads.

<comment><USER61> That's...probably not true at this moment. They're using AMD GPUs, which generally support the sorts of workloads folks need, and AFAIK they haven't opened up support for AMD GPU spot instances to users.

The OpenCL ML ecosystem is really lacking at the moment.

<comment><USER62> PlaidML?

(Disclaimer -- I'm one of the devs. Even though we were bought by Intel a year or so ago, we've been pretty good about keeping the AMD / OpenCL support intact.)

<comment><USER61> PlaidML is super cool, but it's not used by Google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Although Stadia might fail, I see cloud gaming (i.e. streaming A/V) as a revolution for multiplayer games. We can now have all kinds of complicated physics and particle engines, since all players are known to experience the exact same "world model". It might help a lot with anti-cheat technology as well. It's pretty exciting!

<comment><USER64> Modern multiplayer games already do the "world model" calculations on the server, with clients simply rendering the little data they have.

<comment><USER63> Then what's stopping us from making a MMORPG with the physics of a simulator?

<comment><USER65> A lack of gameplay from the resulting physics to justify the server costs? Game devs don't simulate worlds for the fun of it. They have a purpose behind things. There's a cost/benefit involved.

<comment><USER66> > Game devs don't simulate worlds for the fun of it.

Unless you are Tarn Adams

<comment><USER67> Or about a thousand other small indie devs, but somehow I don't think Stadia has much interest in them.

P.S.: Don't take this statement the wrong way, I love small indie devs and donated for Dwarf Fortress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> FYI this is run by the incorrigible Jason Scott of textfiles.com/BBS Documentary/Archive Team fame: [https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1196447880728453120](https://twitter.com/textfiles/status/1196447880728453120)

<comment><USER69> Entirely incorrigible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> My theory is this was a ploy to make use of idle cloud resources Google invested in for GCP. If that is the case I have much less fear of it just being shut down since its just gravy on top.

<comment><USER71> I think the core insight here is right, that as far as they were concerned it seemed silly to miss out on a chance to sell their "google-scale" experience and know-how in many cloud/distributed contexts.

But similair things were true for lots of dead products, and google's willingness to launch a large number of products and only keep the ones that gain massive market traction shows just as much paranoia about ending up with a stable full of lqggards and weak brands.

If user growth flattens out after two years, be nervous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> Just in: Google kills Cloud Print [https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9633006](https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/9633006)

</comment><comment><USER73> I don't know why everyone is so pessimistic about Stadia. All my Google+ circles are super excited about it.

</comment><comment><USER74> Let's make it a sweepstakes. Everyone choose a date and put in $1. Person closest to the date wins the pot.

<comment> martin-adams Just don't organise it on Google Hangouts as that'll probably be shutdown before Stadia.

<comment><USER75> Indeed: [https://gcemetery.co/google-hangouts/](https://gcemetery.co/google- hangouts/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Consider Stadia for what it is: it's someone gaming the system (if you pardon the pun) to become a VP. Once that position is secure, and once all the rest of top brass on the project is promoted, it will begin its inexorable march towards shutdown. So I give it a couple of years. The only way of avoiding this fate is if it gets viral and Google starts making at least a billion a year on it (their official threshold for caring about a business), chances of which seem infinitesimally slim.

</comment><comment><USER77> I feel like this product is just a trojan horse for Google to gather and sell customer data in some form. I'm just not convinced that Google has any real interest in the video game industry itself at least not in the same way as a Sony, MS or Nintendo. Further to that, this offering just feels so half hearted that it almost certainly will go the same way as most Google "experiments" \- I would avoid putting any money into their budding gaming ecosystem as a consumer.

</comment><comment><USER78> Stadia will stay. Google needs this to happen since they need one more revenue stream. There is no way it gets shut down. All of the other products that Google was quick to cancel didn't represent long term key businesses for Google. To shut down Stadia would be akin to shut down their self driving division. Microsoft lost billions with the Xbox before it was profitable and the brand stablished itself in the market. Google recognizes it will be that kind of marathon with Stadia.

<comment><USER79> Google+ didn't represent a long term key business for Google? From what I've heard the general attitude at Google for a while was that Google+ was the future of the company.

That's why they integrated it into everything that they could (YouTube, Drive, GMail) and shut down any service that might remotely compete with it (Reader, Wave).

If Google could kill Google+ then they can kill this.

<comment><USER78> Google+ was active for at least 8 years until it eventually folded. Stadia's biggest issues, network latency and lack of exclusive content, are problems that will disappear over time. If Google was able to support a social network with no reason to exist for 8 years, they can support a gaming service until it succeeds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> This should say more about treating software as a service than Google itself. Many companies have created then cancelled products, been bought out then had their products cancelled, or simply went out of business. We simply don't talk about it as much with other companies since they are either smaller or, in the case of larger companies, they were slower in transitioning to online services so products simply lost support rather than no longer being available.

</comment><comment><USER81> The timer is based on historical averages of Google products. Seems like a decent heuristic, except niche products like Youtube app for the Nintendo 3DS is included

[https://gcemetery.co/youtube- nintendo-3ds/?ref=lifespanrecen...](https://gcemetery.co/youtube- nintendo-3ds/?ref=lifespanrecent/)

</comment><comment><USER82> After all the bad PR I decided to sit down, put aside emotions, and honestly evaluate with myself how I felt about Stadia as a video gamer.

I realized that I actually would really like video game streaming. It would be really neat to pop open whatever game I'm playing on a tv in another room, or on a chromebook or some other non-gaming device.

The problem is Stadia also wants to control the game library and the hardware. I'm not okay with either of those. Really, I just want to stream from the ps4 in one room to the TV in the other room. And, I bet there's a way to do that already (going to look more into it later). Either way, it's not a multibillion dollar venture, so I think that's why google wants to be _streaming, renting a computer, and owning your game library_ , all in one. I don't care about the other two services. I have hardware and I have game libraries.

<comment><USER83> I don't see what you've said as a criticism of Stadia. Stadia was never meant to do what you want and never claimed to either. I personally would rather Google managed my game library because I can't be bothered to download a 10gb game only to play it for 10mins before deleting it. If Google can let me jump in and out easily then it will make discovery much easier for me.

<comment><USER82> It wasn't intended to be a criticism, more of just an evaluation of why I'm personally not interested in it. I like the concept of streaming, just not the bundled steam and the bundled cloud compute.

If I could run Stadia with a game installed locally on my LAN in addition to content from the internet (like how chromecast works) I would give it a try, maybe buy a TV for my bedroom which is currently devoid of technology save an iPad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> Game streaming requires tens of gigabytes worth of data downloaded every hour, resulting in choppy gameplay because of the latency. Their production product seems more like a beta release. They may be too early to market and could see them shutting it down relatively soon.

</comment><comment><USER85> I fear that Stadia could bring change to gaming as publishers might decide that streaming is the way to go against piracy, technical difficulties of users and distribution costs. Maybe it would allow them to externalize support to Google even. Another step to take software away from the user.

It would restrict things like modding and user modifications of games, which I value rather highly. The fear that I suddenly loose access to software is also present since I certainly am one of these backwards hoarders. I saw people loosing some of their digital media when GFWL shut down.

Still, in context of this page I believe that there is life in the old dog yet, even if the dog isn't old at all.

</comment><comment><USER86> In general, Google runs its operation like a family of startups still (even given their new departmentalized org chart), and for any new Google product, I consider the operational expected life to be the operational expected life of a startup company announcement.

Google doesn't have a process internally (AFAIK) equivalent to series funding, but the processes they do have are functionally equivalent; if management decides a project isn't worth investing in, teams get re-assigned and that's it.

And companies that can offer a 10+-year support cycle on their products announce fewer new initiatives a year.

</comment><comment><USER87> It blows my mind that anyone would support something like this. You're spending full price on a _streamed game_ that will be instantly remove when a) Google deems the service not profitable and closes the doors, rendering your money wasted, b) rights expire for certain games, c) some PR nightmare occurs from a CEO of a game company or something and they respond by removing affiliations.

Digital games are bad enough in that they can be pulled out out of the respective stores whenever, but when you can't even have it downloaded to your own console? Get out of here. What utter nonsense.

<comment><USER55> I imagine if the service shuts down, they'd provide full refunds for any purchased games. Microsoft did that when they shut down their ebook store.

<comment><USER47> Surely if they planned to, they would say that when asked about this?

<comment><USER55> I'm sure they don't want to even admit the service would/could shut down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> I kinda want this to turn into a game. Maybe by being able to buy a ticket and bet that it is X days before/after the D-day. Whoever is closest at the time of the actual shutdown will win the whole prize pool.

<comment> duncan-donuts I wouldn't be surprised if you could bet on it in Vegas

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> Gamers Nexus has a scathing review of Stadia that is amusing: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6dyrtnLU_w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6dyrtnLU_w)

</comment><comment><USER90> Perhaps they will switch to an LTS model for some services, committing to at least 5 years of support.

For comparison in the game industry, Sony has publicly committed to 10 years of support for each numbered PlayStation console generation, and that seems to have worked out pretty well, with generations spaced about 7 years apart.

(Sadly the PSVita/PSTV didn't get that support, nor did some services like PlayStation Vue, PlayStation Home, or Qore; also many multiplayer game servers have shut down after a couple of years, rendering the games unplayable online.)

</comment><comment><USER91> I appreciate the sentiment here, but this feels incredibly reactive and preliminary.

Stadia should have more clearly set launch expectations: there are only a few games worth playing for, most of the cool cloud features aren't there, etc, etc

But that doesn't mean all of those things aren't coming? For all intents and purposes, this was a soft launch. Sure Google is going to burn a ton of consumers by launching before the true value-adds are there, but it doesn't mean that one-day Stadia won't be worth buying.

<comment><USER92> That isn't the issue -- it isn't a comment about the quality of Stadia today or even what is possible. It's a comment about Google's propensity to lose interest in products and services and shut them down.

<comment><USER91> I think the two are inherently connected, no? By assuming Stadia is a failed product out of the box, we just label it as another Google product that is waiting to be shut down.

Google is on the hook for a bunch of titles and features they haven't delivered yet, if they were to "lose interest" in the next six months to a year I'd be pretty suprised

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> I honestly wonder what it will take at this point to change Google's culture of how they launch products.

They haven't had a success in a while, bluntly. Perhaps the "Google way" of launching a half finished product over vague windows and iterating after that doesn't actually work? Or if it ever worked, doesn't work now when Google isn't a plucky underdog and the products aren't competing with other unfinished platforms but often mature, feature complete alternatives?

</comment><comment><USER94> Honestly, i cant even name one google hardware product that had a typical industry longevity..

Smart watches were here and there long before Apple jumped in and made it main stream, and just like iPhone they made an industry out of it.

Google should stick with what it does best, like Android model (even wear OS model). Let the market for _a new product_ starts maturing, then use the its software&services to beat the crap out of others.

</comment><comment><USER95> Don't forget there is already [https://killedbygoogle.com/](https://killedbygoogle.com/)

</comment><comment><USER96> In the source they cite ([https://gcemetery.co/](https://gcemetery.co/)), do they consider only products that have died? Or do they track all products that have started? (hopefully they have right censoring, otherwise it seems they're underestimating the average lifespan).

I'm having a hard time finding the data in tabular format.

</comment><comment><USER97> I think that this project has the economics to work, so, even if Google abandons it, somebody should eventually build it. Why I think streaming games is a powerful thing: Piracy. It will be more difficult to get a ilegal copy of a game that was never released to the public, only run on servers. But yes, kind of sucks to who wants to test games or live in third world countries.

</comment><comment><USER98> The idea of game streaming seems sound... at least for certain genres. But having to buy games exclusive to that device is ridiculous, especially when considering Google's graveyard. There is just a whole lot of doubt shadowing it. If anyone can do game streaming correctly, it will end being Steam or something, a platform where most gamers already have games purchased.

</comment><comment><USER99> Interesting parallel story about Sun's "Sun Blade". [https://twitter.com/mcclure111/status/1196557401710837762](https://twitter.com/mcclure111/status/1196557401710837762)

Summary: they solved a technical problem without a clear user story, and were ultimately too early. Sounds a lot like Stadia.

</comment><comment><USER100> Most of those products killed without any transition path are actually consumer products without revenue. So my rule of thumb: if Stadia manages a chunk of other Google business to depend on itself (which makes it much harder to be deprecated), then probably it's okay to use it. Integration into Youtube or Ads would be a good sign of their commitment.

</comment><comment><USER101> Also worth checking out: the "near death" page on the Google cemetery website: [https://gcemetery.co/tag/near-death/](https://gcemetery.co/tag/near-death/). Lots of obscure products you probably haven't even heard of.

</comment><comment><USER102> I have zero interest in Stadia personally and I would consider myself a gamer. I just feel like I want less latency and video over internet doesn't seem like it's going to catch up with a 4-6ft video cable direct to my monitor / TV.

If Stadia is successful I can see it being a way to pay for new data centers for Google's cloud infrastructure.

If you consider that most consoles last a 4-5 years, they cost ~$299-500 over that period, that's ~$39-$125 per year for the generation. Instead of the users owning the machine locally, Google installs a consoles worth of power in a data center. Once the generation is over, the data center is still there and Google has put all that money into a semi-new server datacenter infrastructure that can be rolled into Google's Cloud service offerings. "Kids" / Gaming money then pays for "Adults" / Cloud Server infrastructure. The idea sounds great as long as there are enough gamers who don't mind the latency.

I am unfamiliar with the lifespan of a Google data center but I imagine it's around 5+ years.

<comment><USER103> A console and a Google project has a similar life expectancy, but when the console EoLs, you can continue to use it indefinitely for free if you want.

<comment><USER102> Yes, that is another reason I prefer local hardware too. But Google can't sell enterprise priced cloud services with the console in your house (yet).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER104> It sure sucks to invest in a product and then see it shut down. However, I like the idea of a company that constantly tries new things, iterates and is not afraid to pull the plug if it doesn't work rather then have hundreds of zombie products that suck the profits.

</comment><comment><USER105> I (half) surprised to see there are more than one Google product cemetery sites

[https://killedbygoogle.com/](https://killedbygoogle.com/)

[https://gcemetery.co/](https://gcemetery.co/)

</comment><comment><USER106> I tried Stadia and had a wonderful first experience on my Mac. Mac is relevant here because it's still worse for gaming, with access to fewer titles.

If the product is good, I'll pay for it. With streaming bundling, they can create a solid business.

<comment><USER107> > With streaming bundling, they can create a solid business.

I do wonder if this would be profitable though. Is Google operating at a profit even with the current model?

NOTE: I got way into writing this comment. I have things to do, but I thought I'd do some napkin math instead haha. I'm probably way off, but it's an interesting thought experiment.

My guess is it isn't. I'd be surprised if Google is selling the hardware at a profit right now, simply because the volume is not too high and they definitely want to reduce the barrier of entry.

On the software side, game companies probably don't want to lose margins and it sounds like right now they have leverage since this is a nascent platform. My guess is they're taking around 70% of the game sale (wild guess from the "digital sales" info in these Ubisoft slides [1]).

Let's ignore Stadia Pro for now and just assume the $10 a month go towards the the free games, or the extra compute for the 4k games / surround sound, or the discounts. If we go with $60 as the average price of a game, this napkin math tells us Google is making like $18 per game and that this their main source of revenue.

How long is a game? It varies widely, depending on the game (and the player) [4]. Let's say people spend an average of 20 hours on a game though. An hour and a half a day for two weeks.

Can Google stream games, HD at 60fps, for less than 90¢ an hour? Of course, this is Google so they're just employing their existing developers infrastructure, etc. The scale probably means they can probably get RTX 2080s in bulk at a discount. It's perfectly plausible they can. Im again, also certainly way off in my numbers. But it is a huge investment— the promise is it could open the doors of an industry for Google, but if it doesn't, is it worth it?

To be clear, I'm not calling doom on Stadia just yet— YouTube operated [2] (operates?) without profit and there's still old services that have stuck around. Google Voice still exists in spite of many calling its doom years ago [3]. Just wrote this for the analysis, not really to make a point one way or another.

[1]: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/7x2sp3/ubisioft_reta...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/7x2sp3/ubisioft_retail_game_margins_are_55_vs_70_digital/) [2]: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to- profit-f...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/viewers-dont-add-up-to-profit-for- youtube-1424897967) [3]: [https://gizmodo.com/google-voice-is-dying-and-its- beautiful-...](https://gizmodo.com/google-voice-is-dying-and-its- beautiful-1632920573) [4]: [http://www.gamelengths.com](http://www.gamelengths.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> I liked the halloween google graveyard: [https://twitter.com/leftoblique/status/1179476277549400064](https://twitter.com/leftoblique/status/1179476277549400064)

</comment><comment><USER108> Haven't tried Stadia, but I imagine the input lag problem is not resolved. FPS games will likely be unplayable.

I tried Steams version which steams a video from your gaming pc to another pc on local host and the input lag is still noticeable

</comment><comment><USER109> Gonna share this on my Google+!

</comment><comment><USER110> I give it 2021 [https://github.com/codyogden/killedbygoogle/issues/444](https://github.com/codyogden/killedbygoogle/issues/444)

</comment><comment><USER111> To be frank, I don't want and don't think Google Stadia will go down.

I don't want it to go down because, I'm sure Google will lobby with ISPs to improve their latency and ISPs in many countries have long hidden their pathetic latency behind bandwidth/data numbers.

I don't think it will go down, because once latency issue is fixed there's no debilitating issue with stadia and western reviewers who are bearish about Stadia are forgetting how big mobile gaming is in Asia. Many of those mobile gamers haven't owned a console let alone a computer and Stadia in their cheap android mobile would be first console quality game they experience.

</comment><comment><USER112> I have no idea how it works, but it would be fascinating to learn about how the video is encoded/decoded in such a latency sensitive environment.

</comment><comment><USER113> This seems like it will be a more difficult one to shut down since it is a subscription service from the start. More likely to be profitable early.

</comment><comment><USER114> I hope this service grows, but right now there are no incentives to jump in. Pay $130 to play old games + pay full price for more old games.

</comment><comment><USER115> The ads are unappealing, reviews are not favorable, the name does not really sound like an entertainment product.

A dead on arrival product.

</comment><comment><USER116> $$. When it doesn't make enough, shut down. That's what they are all about, bets. They don't hold onto the bag too long.

</comment><comment><USER117> Has anyone implemented an AI based prediction for this? OR is it as simple as saying "in 45 months" ?

</comment><comment><USER118> you should change it to a bidding war. would be fun to watch as the predictions change every day

</comment><comment><USER116> Q10 shows big $$ lost from Stadia, investors brings heat to the CEO. Shit rolls down hill

</comment><comment><USER119> Google understands that the Xbox is what keeps Windows alive, and making $$$ for MS.

They want to get into the gaming industry, but take a gordian knot solution. They don't want to compete against consoles. They want to be a console for computers, regardless of OS.

Do they kill things? Yes. But, if those things are making billions.

Video games make billions.

Survey says?

</comment><comment><USER120> Not all heroes wear capes. Props to the developer who made this. This is perfect.

</comment><comment><USER121> Wow, it's really amazing me how much people hate Stadia. It's a perfect storm of Google + subscription gaming, so I guess it's not surprising, but I do wonder if there's a whole bunch of people behind the ones with the pitch forks who like the idea, even a bit.

<comment><USER122> There are a lot of people that want Google to fail, and will try to manipulate public opinion without any substance to their complaints against Google. You'll see this with Chrome/Chromium as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER123> This is a prototype for thin client. It's a more advanced chromebook.

</comment><comment><USER124> Hah, excellent joke/insight! If this goes viral it might become a self- fulfilling prophecy - people realizing Google likes to kill their services will say "Stay away from Stadia, it'll hurt if you get into it and they kill it".

<comment><USER125> Joking aside, this self-fulfilling prophecy issue is turning into a serious problem for Google that needs attention from the C-suite. Killing a product is no longer isolated to that product alone but is reflecting badly on the entire company and kneecapping completely unrelated teams. It's especially bad in the cloud: there are tons of enterprises that won't even look at GCP because of Google's flighty reputation.

<comment><USER126> The constant cancelling of products combined with the risk of having my Google account banned in one service and then locking me out from all others are the main reasons I don't even try out new Google services. The data collection would be one other reason, but they already know everything about me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER127> Counter is optimistic :D

</comment><comment><USER128> This won't be shutdown and I'm betting on it now. If it ends up doing badly, they will pivot chrome into another gaming platform similar to steam and the browser will become a Swiss army knife app where you do almost everything.

</comment><comment><USER129> I'm still bitter about them closing Google trips

</comment><comment><USER130> Nice joke and nice irony. I actually think that Stadia will be very successful in the long run, and I think Google will never shut it down. Same for GCP.

(Just IMHO, and not much to substantiate my prediction.)

<comment><USER65> > I actually think that Stadia will be very successful in the long run

So far nobody has come up with a viable revenue model for cloud gaming that people are willing to pay for. People are already complaining about Stadia's $10/mo just to then pay full price for old games. And there's no way even that is covering Google's costs to run the service.

The biggest hurdle is not Google gets bored and canning it. It's at what point does Google decide Stadia needs to at least be revenue neutral and prices double if not quadruple, with the free tier eliminated entirely. Is the service still viable at that point? Will anyone stick with it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER131> They already blew it with the name...

</comment><comment><USER132> I wouldn't be surprised if it's gone in 2 years or less. Stadia's launch has been nothing short of disastrous.

</comment><comment><USER133> When will they shutdown Waymo?

</comment><comment><USER134> *Shut Down

</comment><comment><USER135> make it shorter

</comment><comment><USER136> This may be the first Betteridge exception I've seen.

<comment><USER136> self-reply: post title was edited.

</comment></comment><comment><USER137> So like, what is the counterargument? Google keeps projects alive that drain resources for longer?

I guess I don't understand what people want here.

<comment><USER138> It's the daily hate on google thread. It doesn't really matter what specifically google is or isn't doing you'll see the same litany of complaints repeated over and over. HN has become painful in that regard.

<comment><USER137> There's a certain old-guard zealotry that's a common thread on HN, amplified by the echo chamber.

Can't wait until it dies off.

<comment><USER138> I don't really know what happened. This place used to be excited about new tech nowadays it's... curmudgeonly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER139> Sorry, but pet peeve. Shutdown is not a verb. (should be "shut down")

[http://notaverb.com/shutdown](http://notaverb.com/shutdown)

<comment><USER140> Sure it is.

And I'd rather take it from Merriam-Webster than someone's belabored "notaverb.com" hobby horse.

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shutdown](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/shutdown)

First known use of shut down as verb: 1779.

If your issue is merely with the lack of a space, then it just seems petty to me, like getting technical about raincoat vs rain coat.

<comment><USER139> Webster agrees with me, it should be two words, not a single word. That was my point (and is the point of the "notaverb" site).

<comment><USER141> Language is defined by how people actually use it. If people are generally using and understanding "shutdown" as a verb (which has been true in the computer industry for at least 30 years), then it's a verb regardless of what language prescriptionists say.

<comment><USER139> I'm generally a descriptivist vs. a precriptionist, but this is a different thing. Is there anyone arguing that, just because many people write "there" when they mean "their", that we should consider it correct? To me this is the same.

Can you show me anywhere "shutdown" is used as a verb (in the computer industry or otherwise) where it appears as a choice rather than a simple error? Like in the title of a well circulated article, or otherwise in something that has been subject to professional editing?

[https://twitter.com/apstylebook/status/1087717834975789056?l...](https://twitter.com/apstylebook/status/1087717834975789056?lang=en)

<comment><USER141> > Is there anyone arguing that, just because many people write "there" when > they mean "their", that we should consider it correct?

Not yet. But if that becomes common enough, then that just becomes how the language is, like it or not. I personally would hate it and would be that annoying pedant who always calls it out, but if people mostly accept it, then I wouldn't really be in the right. When usage is in transition like that, it's these sorts of debates that determine what the end result will be.

My current pet peeve is the use of "literally" for emphasis rather than actually meaning literally. Although I will always object, this usage has become very accepted by people (below a certain age), and so I can't really say they're wrong in some sort of objective sense. But I'll complain anyway.

<comment><USER139> Yeah, if it becomes common enough, I suppose you are right. But since this is a whole class of "phrasal verbs" that all have the same rules, it seems less likely that that is going to happen any time soon, as opposed to something like "all right" changing to "alright" which is more of a discrete case.

There is also the issue that phrasal verbs are often split up or rearranged ("when will they shut it down?" "it is shutting down", etc), which isn't all that compatible with merging into one word.

Anyway I'm glad to see they changed the title on HN, even if I got downvoted for my complaint. :) I appreciate your pointing out the value of this discussion, though! ("it's these sorts of debates that determine what the end result will be.")

I'm personally ok with the non-literal use of the word "literal," but that's a different tangent...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER142> This title is such click bait lol. Granted this service was a terrible idea in the first place, and WILL be shutdown, but this is a hypothesis, extrapolated over hundreds of companies that have nothing to do with each other.

<comment><USER143> >extrapolated over hundreds of companies that have nothing to do with each other

What are you talking about? The hypothesis was extrapolated over hundreds of Google's products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER138> The end goal for google with this tech isn't stadia, it's something completely new. It's loading and playing a game as easily as you load and watch a youtube video right now.

Stadia's just the beta test to get the hardware running, tested and get developers familiar with the backend platform they need to develop for/port too.

Video games are one of the few really massive and lucrative markets which Google can move into and make a dent on their balance sheets.

So yeah Stadia will probably get canned at some point, but the technology will probably go onto bigger and better things.</comment>


Cheap, convenient and almost gone: Uber, DoorDash and similar apps - <AUTHOR> https://www.sfchronicle.com/entertainment/article/Cheap-convenient-and-almost-gone-Uber-DoorDash-14545572.php <comment><USER2> One thing I don't see reported very often is the one figure that is most important. Unit profitability. Whether they are profitable it not while growing so much is of no consequence.

Is Uber profitable on a per ride basis? Are these other delivery companies profitable on a unit basis? If not, are they close and will small price increases make them profitable?

</comment><comment><USER3> What's worse is that SV has been buying popularity, influence and political points with that money. Does the money run out though? There must be huge fat to burn before SV runs out of it.</comment>


Linux users identify with their OS more often than Mac, Windows users - <AUTHOR> https://www.patreon.com/posts/32226964 <comment><USER2> If this data comes from Lunduke's audience, then it's probably not very representative of computer users in general, since people who listen to podcasts about GNU/Linux are going to be particularly likely to identify with it relative to all GNU/Linux users.

Nevertheless, this finding still seems obviously true, and the reasons are numerous and obvious:

\- GNU/Linux users are most likely to know what an operating system is, which one they use, and how it's different from their brand of computer.

\- They're more likely to have chosen and installed their OS themselves.

\- They're more likely to have invested time into getting their system and making it work.

\- They're more likely to have an ideological reason for using their OS.

\- They're more likely to see their OS as differentiating them from the majority, since there are fewer of them.

\- They're more likely to know about and be affected differences between operating systems.

</comment><comment><USER3> I only identify with macOS in the same way that I prefer one presidential candidate over another. I don't feel like I have much choice in the matter.

But with Linux, I absolutely identify as a proud Linux user. I _chose_ it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Seems legit. I identify as an OpenBSD user for reasons I suspect are true of many GNU/Linux users: I had to _choose_ OpenBSD for myself, and make a not- exactly-trivial effort to not only get it installed, but learn how to use it effectively and create a comfortable computing environment for myself. Because I've actively chosen to use OpenBSD on my personal equipment, I identify as an OpenBSD user.

I don't identify as a Mac user even though my day job has issued me a Mac for use at work, because there's no personal choice involved other than my choice to work at a company that gives its developers Macs. The OS is just there, and I deal with it in order to do my job and get paid. I don't identify as a Windows user for similar reasons; when I worked at Microsoft shops I used what they gave me and put up with the OS because I had to.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is unsurprising to me considering you have to go out of your way to get a machine running Linux; that's not the case for any of the other OSes mentioned. You won't find a Linux laptop in a retail store for example, nor are they readily presented to you on Amazon. Various manufacturers will sell them to you if you know to look for them, but that's a pretty big "if."

If you care enough to seek out an alternative OS, you probably care more about your OS choice than most.

</comment><comment><USER6> Sounds reasonable.

Linux let's users shape their environment exactly to their wishes.

Obviously then "their Linux" is something they identify with much more, because they partly built that setup themselves, for their own, personal needs only.

And because you _can_ do that, you will also attract the kind of people who would like to do that, further amplifying the effect.

As a personal anecdote, for me, this is really the main reason I prefer Linux.

<comment><USER7> That seems accurate. The advent of the 'personal computer' allowed many to get away from the (often necessary) restrictions (including expenses) imposed by the use of mainframes. The result was freedom to program and experiment with hardware and software. Proprietary systems (Windows, Mac) once again built in restrictions and limitations for various reasons.

Linux doesn't. Its many distros are the response to widely different usage needs, ranging the gamut from turnkey to roll-your-own (Arch, Linux-from- Scratch). If you don't like some feature of a program, you can modify and re- compile the source code.

The software repositories contain programs offering a few to dozens of different ways for users to accomplish their goals. Many users are drawn to understand the details of computing, and to experience the power that confers, as opposed to simply operating an appliance.

In short, many Linux users are the same sort of people who made 'personal computing' possible in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This seems to be more of an ego thing to me, personally I don't really identify with operating systems but do have a strong preference to supporting opensource vs proprietary software and hardware.

So I suppose that would make me a linux zealot to some degree, but not to the amount of some people that feel the need to point out they use linux as if that means they are somehow better than the common M$ or IOS user.

A similar attitude was also prevalent back in the 90s when artists and musicians all thought apple systems were much better for creative people and were willing to pay a premium for that hardware.

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that linux uses use linux because it comes with a set of beliefs (GNU, free software) that match their own: they see linux as reflecting their own beliefs rather than identifying with linux because of some attribute or experience in using it.

<comment><USER10> I think it is underappreciated that what you can do with it is contingent on both the license and the values and motives of the devs and maintainers. There are lots of things you can do with linux that you can't do elsewhere because it would break someone's business model.

When I use linux it is mainly because of commodity. Since it's redistributable, I can install _all_ the software I want non-interactivly, without sitting around clicking on eulas and license keys and that kind of crap.

This decouples your software environment from your hardware. You can pull the disk and put it in another machine if you feel like it. You can untar a backup into ~/ in a new installation, install all the software you use with a one- liner, and you're good to go in a few minutes like nothing ever happened.

I buy laptops two at time. If this one gets stolen today, I'll get the other one out of the closet, and I'll be back to where I started in the time it takes to drink a couple of coffees.

I can't stand the idea of my productivity depending on a specific piece of hardware, cloud-login credentials, license keys or whatever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yeah, they're a bit like vegans that way - as the old joke goes, "Q: How do you tell if someone is a vegan? A: You don't have to tell, they'll tell you."</comment>


Agile as Trauma - <AUTHOR> https://doriantaylor.com/agile-as-trauma <comment><USER2> > _Since communication overhead increases proportionally the square of the > number of people on the team—a fact illuminated by Brooks in the 1970s—what > you actually want is as little collaboration as you can get away with._

It's an important point that warrants repeating. It comes from an observation that if there are N people communicating directly with each other, every one has to communicate with N-1 other people, which leads to N*(N-1)/2 simultaneously open bidirectional communication channels, which is O(N^2).

I think this point plays a crucial role in why hierarchies form, both in teams/companies and societies. A hierarchy is what lets you turn an O(N^2) relationship into O(N) one, at the expense of creating O(log n) hops.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think an important point is that anything higher up the chain rarely gets attention. Every agile training I have attended has emphasized that agile implementation should transform the whole organization. In practice I have never seen this happen so the devs work in a sort of agile environment within a non-agile environment.

<comment><USER4> Implementations bear no resemblance to Agile Manifesto, XP or even Lean. "Scaling it up" seems to build only on processes and rituals, which always bogs down into beuracrazy and politics. Lastly, management seem hellbent on restricting the ideology to Development, forcing "Agile" over siloed teams rather than practicing and understanding agility themselves. =Fail on all accounts for 15-20 years.

This is well observed and understood, the motives behind as well, which doesn't ever seem to change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a really wonderful piece, written with a clear voice, style, and appreciation for history. Pieces like this make me glad to read HN, if only for a straightforward way of finding pieces like it somewhat regularly.

</comment><comment><USER6> Agile bumps up against misaligned incentives and conways law so fast. It doesnt work for anything other than executing on a predefined problem that needs to be split up. After that you end up needing to use so many "non agile" techniques to force it to work, and then youre in a purity contest.

<comment><USER7> Isn't it rather the case that non-agile is how you deal with a predefined problem? Agile (incremental and iterative development, as opposed to big design up front, big bang delivery) is how you deal with a problem where the requirements are unknown or changing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> God i wish people actually making decisions about implementing scrum would hear the pains and complaints it brings to the team.

</comment><comment><USER9> Lots of complaints about agile but I never see any real data about why opposing ideas are any better.

<comment><USER10> I think that the root cause for the complaints is that the Project Management Institute (PMI) has rolled out Agile as a new way to ask developers for status every day, rather than as discovery tool. PMI comes by it honestly as their bread and butter was always handling tasks that have a well-known duration, such as organizing folding textiles to be loaded on a truck.

Creation of new software isn't compatible with that approach, and I think the author calls the reason out clearly and succinctly:

>The problem is that you and/or your team can only eliminate a fixed-ish number of bits of entropy per unit time, and at the outset you don't know how many bits there are in the problem to eliminate.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What technologies still impress you most today? - <AUTHOR>

I had  a moment of amazement the other day while I was putting in my contacts - these flimsy plastic disks allow me to see, and we can manufacture them with quite amazing precision.<p>A lot of technology we use every day is really quite amazing, if you stop to think about it. What technology has amazed you recently, and why? <comment><USER2> Cars. Making a box that will carry 4 people around at 80 mph is a pretty neat accomplishment. Doing it comfortably, safely, and at a a competitive price is an amazing feat of engineering and optimization.

</comment><comment><USER3> The fact I can sit in a cafe, wirelessly connect to the internet, then connect to the office through my VPN, and then log into a virtual machine that doesn't even physically exist.

</comment><comment><USER4> A relative of mine recently had heart surgery of a type that is fairly routine nowadays. But when I think of the fact that you can pull apart someone's rib- cage, stick knives into their heart and then put it all back together again such that the person is walking about not long after, I am still impressed.

</comment><comment><USER5> Would it be wrong to say we're ending the first decade of the 21st century and I was really hoping for a lot more tech. Most of us grew up on sci-fi. I'd say we're a little behind schedule. "Sorry Dave, I can't do that." is a pretty old movie quote.

</comment><comment><USER6> Technology will only really amaze you when you have to do without it for a week. Or even just an hour. Even the most basic stuff is so far beyond what you personally would be able to re-create starting from scratch, even with all your knowledge that it might as well all be science fiction.

We're standing on top of a nearly endless layercake of invention, unable to even conceive any more of what it would be like to stand on the plate the cake rests on.

We'd probably last for about 15 minutes. But since the heart of the question is 'recently', I'd have to pick abs, without it I wouldn't be writing this.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think it's amazing that the Internet works.

Topical video (Everything's amazing and nobody's happy):

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk>

</comment><comment><USER8> The scientific method. It works on just about any problem you're able to apply it to.

</comment><comment><USER9> Transistors. The sheer complexity and speed of what can be achieved by stacking together a large number of electrically activated switches never ceases to amaze me.

<comment><USER10> I agree. The fact that Moore's Law has held true for so long has made transistors the most important technology.

In terms of world changing technology, the Deion Sanders Hot Dog Express is a close second to transistors: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZyGaVNihK0>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

</comment><comment><USER12> Having been to the moon.

<comment><USER13> The truly impressive thing about getting to the moon, was that it happened only 66 years after the Wright brothers got off the ground. The presence of two world wars during the intervening period is not entirely coincidental.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The world wide web, for being so relevant to many things I do.</comment>


Recommendation Nation - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=20591 <comment><USER2> I'm trying to apply recommendation systems to baby naming: <http://emilyoremma.heroku.com/></comment>