It really doesn't! The common responses you hear in these types of threads include "I didn't even try it; because I knew it would get killed." And of course, this results in lower turnout, and eventual death of the offering. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point.
So what's Google to even do?
* They could burn money and keep the offering afloat to "prove" they are serious (seems to be the case with Stadia).
* They can pivot/transition the offering (see Google Glass).
* Or they can use new offerings for R&D (and in some cases, like that of Stadia, be paid for that R&D), and then fold that technology/data somewhere else (see Wave) - this seems like the path most taken.
If we remember Google's core competencies, the revolving door of offerings as feeder into their larger services makes sense on paper, but I do agree that it's hurting consumer confidence and there is a hidden cost to that.
So what's Google to even do?
* They could burn money and keep the offering afloat to "prove" they are serious (seems to be the case with Stadia).
* They can pivot/transition the offering (see Google Glass).
* Or they can use new offerings for R&D (and in some cases, like that of Stadia, be paid for that R&D), and then fold that technology/data somewhere else (see Wave) - this seems like the path most taken.
If we remember Google's core competencies, the revolving door of offerings as feeder into their larger services makes sense on paper, but I do agree that it's hurting consumer confidence and there is a hidden cost to that.