<story><title>Google discontinues Google Glass for enterprise</title><url>https://www.google.com/glass/start/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>phpisthebest</author><text>2 &amp;quot;Seasons&amp;quot; of a netflix show is not even 1 season of broadcast...  Most Broadcast shows run 20-24 Episodes per Season.  Netflix is 10 at the most, some 6 episodes. per &amp;quot;season&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;That is part of their problem, and why the cancellations feel even more abrupt and why people do not want to invest time in them.  it is hard to tell a compelling story in 6 episodes of TV. So if a netflix series get 2 seasons,  12 Episode. it is just starting... even though to netflix thinks it should have a captive audience.  that would just be the midseason of a Broadcast show&lt;p&gt;Most of the popular shows on broadcast would never had made it to be popular under the netflix model of 1000 shows @ 6 episodes...</text></item><item><author>toyg</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think Netflix has a particular problem; maintaining series for more than a couple of seasons has always been hard in broadcasting. It&amp;#x27;s easier to spot now because people have complete visibility: instead of caring about a couple of series in key time slots, they can know care about &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; series, so it&amp;#x27;s more noticeable that most series die a sad death. Addressing off-ramps in a nicer way would be an innovation. The problem is that production costs are so high, that keeping a losing franchise running is extremely expensive.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, Google plays in a field where maintenance costs are a rounding error. You can basically freeze a product and keep it running forever for pennies, and these products get embedded in our daily lives, which is why killing it looks so bad - I can always pick up a new series with zero effort, whereas migrating off a productive service takes time and effort.</text></item><item><author>phpisthebest</author><text>google will never get a new service to a billion users right now&lt;p&gt;They have the netflix problem (or does nexflix have the Google problem)&lt;p&gt;they have killed off soo many projects that no one want to invest their time into new ones unless they reach the multi-year stage, and they can not reach the multi-year stage unless they get millions of users...&lt;p&gt;It is a catch 22, and neither company seems to want to address or even acknowledge is a problem for them</text></item><item><author>bla3</author><text>I think this is both obsolete and subtly wrong. Big corps want products with global impact. When a product is new, it&amp;#x27;s evaluated for its potential. When it&amp;#x27;s been around for a while, it&amp;#x27;s evaluated on how well its growth is matching the estimated impact. Eventually, growth has stopped. If the product lands at an active base of a billion users or so, it&amp;#x27;s a success and people definitely can make a career out of maintaining and improving it.&lt;p&gt;And to make working on new stuff a bit less incentivized, promotions to higher levels need to see at least some realized growth and not just getting v0 out these days as far as I know.</text></item><item><author>throwaw12</author><text>At this point, I think issue is not about products Google build, it is about how Google put their incentives in place.&lt;p&gt;- Build new shiny thing -&amp;gt; promoted&lt;p&gt;- Support shiny thing -&amp;gt; it&amp;#x27;s not difficult, everyone can do it&lt;p&gt;This type of culture is influencing future direction of Google products, they put together awesome team, solve problem and get from 0 to 1, then team moves on, others don&amp;#x27;t have incentive to make 1 to 100.&lt;p&gt;I feel like, if this was a startup which highly depends on the success of product for their existence they could have pivoted or come up better ideas for adoption. Maybe, Magic Leap was that company, or they got too much investment and thought they will exist for a quite while</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>soylentcola</author><text>I think the &amp;quot;hard to tell a compelling story in 6 episodes&amp;quot; thing just depends on the type of story.  Previous replies mention several excellent shorter-run series.&lt;p&gt;Often, if I find out a show is a miniseries (or I guess they call them &amp;quot;limited series&amp;quot; nowadays) I am much more likely to watch it.  Too many shows go the route of &amp;quot;how many seasons can we get this to run&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;how long will it take to tell this story with good pacing to conclusion?&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I get tired of watching shows that seem designed to run indefinitely.  They all have the same sort of pacing that stretches things out unnecessarily just to pad seasons.  Shows like that feel like basic cable to me when I watch them.  I&amp;#x27;ll take a good 6 or 8 episode arc over indefinite seasons any day.</text></comment>
<story><title>Google discontinues Google Glass for enterprise</title><url>https://www.google.com/glass/start/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>phpisthebest</author><text>2 &amp;quot;Seasons&amp;quot; of a netflix show is not even 1 season of broadcast...  Most Broadcast shows run 20-24 Episodes per Season.  Netflix is 10 at the most, some 6 episodes. per &amp;quot;season&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;That is part of their problem, and why the cancellations feel even more abrupt and why people do not want to invest time in them.  it is hard to tell a compelling story in 6 episodes of TV. So if a netflix series get 2 seasons,  12 Episode. it is just starting... even though to netflix thinks it should have a captive audience.  that would just be the midseason of a Broadcast show&lt;p&gt;Most of the popular shows on broadcast would never had made it to be popular under the netflix model of 1000 shows @ 6 episodes...</text></item><item><author>toyg</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t think Netflix has a particular problem; maintaining series for more than a couple of seasons has always been hard in broadcasting. It&amp;#x27;s easier to spot now because people have complete visibility: instead of caring about a couple of series in key time slots, they can know care about &lt;i&gt;all&lt;/i&gt; series, so it&amp;#x27;s more noticeable that most series die a sad death. Addressing off-ramps in a nicer way would be an innovation. The problem is that production costs are so high, that keeping a losing franchise running is extremely expensive.&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, Google plays in a field where maintenance costs are a rounding error. You can basically freeze a product and keep it running forever for pennies, and these products get embedded in our daily lives, which is why killing it looks so bad - I can always pick up a new series with zero effort, whereas migrating off a productive service takes time and effort.</text></item><item><author>phpisthebest</author><text>google will never get a new service to a billion users right now&lt;p&gt;They have the netflix problem (or does nexflix have the Google problem)&lt;p&gt;they have killed off soo many projects that no one want to invest their time into new ones unless they reach the multi-year stage, and they can not reach the multi-year stage unless they get millions of users...&lt;p&gt;It is a catch 22, and neither company seems to want to address or even acknowledge is a problem for them</text></item><item><author>bla3</author><text>I think this is both obsolete and subtly wrong. Big corps want products with global impact. When a product is new, it&amp;#x27;s evaluated for its potential. When it&amp;#x27;s been around for a while, it&amp;#x27;s evaluated on how well its growth is matching the estimated impact. Eventually, growth has stopped. If the product lands at an active base of a billion users or so, it&amp;#x27;s a success and people definitely can make a career out of maintaining and improving it.&lt;p&gt;And to make working on new stuff a bit less incentivized, promotions to higher levels need to see at least some realized growth and not just getting v0 out these days as far as I know.</text></item><item><author>throwaw12</author><text>At this point, I think issue is not about products Google build, it is about how Google put their incentives in place.&lt;p&gt;- Build new shiny thing -&amp;gt; promoted&lt;p&gt;- Support shiny thing -&amp;gt; it&amp;#x27;s not difficult, everyone can do it&lt;p&gt;This type of culture is influencing future direction of Google products, they put together awesome team, solve problem and get from 0 to 1, then team moves on, others don&amp;#x27;t have incentive to make 1 to 100.&lt;p&gt;I feel like, if this was a startup which highly depends on the success of product for their existence they could have pivoted or come up better ideas for adoption. Maybe, Magic Leap was that company, or they got too much investment and thought they will exist for a quite while</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>PaulDavisThe1st</author><text>&amp;gt; So if a netflix series get 2 seasons, 12 Episode. it is just starting&lt;p&gt;True Detective season one: 8 episodes and done =&amp;gt; one of the most acclaimed TV shows in many years.&lt;p&gt;Mare of Easttown: 7 episodes and done =&amp;gt; one of the most acclaimed TV shows in many years&lt;p&gt;If you make actual stories instead of trying to create ongoing scenarios, you can hit it out of the park in less than 10 episodes.</text></comment>