Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spotify moves its back end to Google Cloud

news.spotify.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 397 posts

Re: Spotify moves its back end to Google Cloud

#321

Post by boundlessdreamz »

boulos wrote: post #157
tn13 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said Google's reputation is what made me not even bother to try. We all know that AWS and AZURE both are state of art and very competitively priced. If Google wants to beat them they have to win the perception war too. (OR reduce prices substantially).

I don't agree that AWS and Azure are actually competitively priced with Compute Engine anymore. Following our price cut last May and our custom VM shapes, we're often 40% cheaper: http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2016/01/Happy-New-Ye... that's a massive lead (and it's sadly not commonly known). So I agree with you, we need to do better in the perception war, but Compute Engine is hands down the leader in cloud…

GCE pricing is great but GCS is not. It is much more expensive than S3 or cloudfront (2.5x - 1.3x) when you consider per request costs. I have brought this up a couple of times on HN to Google cloud employees but nothing has changed.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10442654 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10187600

Other problem areas for GCS compared to S3/Cloudfront

1. SSL support for custom domains in GCS is lacking. 2. Also SSL does not work for domain-named bucket when using .storage.googleapis.com/ form. You can only use /" rel="nofollow">https://storage.googleapis.com// This makes using SSL for a static site hosted in SSL very difficult because you can't use relative URLs. Cloudfront has solved it by using URLs of the form http(s)://xxxxxxx.cloudfront.net/

Re: Spotify moves its back end to Google Cloud

#322

Post by plexicle »

boulos wrote: post #83
Hermel wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you happy with the performance of AppEngine? I have tried it last summer and was quite disappointed. CPU-bound programs that completed in a few seconds on my own computer took about ten times as long on AppEngine despite similar nominal specs (GHz and RAM).

If you like the App Engine model, but want a "full computer worth of horsepower", you might want to consider our "Managed VM" environment built on top of Compute Engine: https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/managed-vms/ Disclaimer: I work on Compute Engine.

I love GCE. I really would like to see Node on it natively, without the need for ManagedVM. I tried it a while ago and did not want to deal with all of the Docker stuff. It was especially a pain on Windows. :(

Re: Spotify moves its back end to Google Cloud

#323

Post by [deleted] »

boulos wrote: post #83
Hermel wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you happy with the performance of AppEngine? I have tried it last summer and was quite disappointed. CPU-bound programs that completed in a few seconds on my own computer took about ten times as long on AppEngine despite similar nominal specs (GHz and RAM).

If you like the App Engine model, but want a "full computer worth of horsepower", you might want to consider our "Managed VM" environment built on top of Compute Engine: https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/managed-vms/ Disclaimer: I work on Compute Engine.

[deleted]

Re: Spotify moves its back end to Google Cloud

#324

Post by gm3dmo »

bshanks wrote: post #310
boulos wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Google Cloud products that have made it to General Availability (GA), we have a one-year deprecation policy ( https://cloud.google.com/terms/ , Section 7.2). That is, if we're going to make some big change, we give you a 1 year heads up. Disclaimer: I work on Compute Engine, but I'm not a lawyer ;).

Google seems to be facing a trust problem here that its competitors don't, due to its history of shutting down popular services, even those that were being used internally and even those that it had been recently hyping to the press. Due to this unusual context, perhaps it would help if Google were to increase this promise from 1 year to 10 years (or 5 years or 3 years).

On the flipside, API's like maps have had stable versions that are deprecated for years.

Re: Spotify moves its back end to Google Cloud

#326

Post by lisbakke »

bshanks wrote: post #310
boulos wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Google Cloud products that have made it to General Availability (GA), we have a one-year deprecation policy ( https://cloud.google.com/terms/ , Section 7.2). That is, if we're going to make some big change, we give you a 1 year heads up. Disclaimer: I work on Compute Engine, but I'm not a lawyer ;).

Google seems to be facing a trust problem here that its competitors don't, due to its history of shutting down popular services, even those that were being used internally and even those that it had been recently hyping to the press. Due to this unusual context, perhaps it would help if Google were to increase this promise from 1 year to 10 years (or 5 years or 3 years).

Yep. Their trust problem is also very well earned both from the APIs they've killed/changed and from the long list of Google products in the graveyard.

Re: Spotify moves its back end to Google Cloud

#327

Post by BogusIKnow »

latchkey wrote: post #35

What Google Cloud needs is a better sales story. AWS consistently beats out Google in this respect. This story is welcomed and there should be more success stories published like this. My business is a heavy GC user (AppEngine, Datastore, CloudStorage, BQ, ComputeEngine, ManagedVM) and I couldn't imagine achieving what we have achieved in such a short amount of time on any other platform. We (myself and another guy)…

AWS has Werner Vogels who is not a CTO but a tech salesman on every conference.

Re: Spotify moves its back end to Google Cloud

#328

Post by tormeh »

pgm8705 wrote: post #128
vinkelhake wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a long time Spotify user who switched to Google a few months ago: I really like the playlists and I've found a lot of new music that I like. The recommendations have worked really well. I'm not looking back.

I've also found that Google's radio stations are more diverse and less repetitive.

Just checked out Google Music on Wikipedia. No native desktop clients. Not even for Windows, and I use Linux. They can't be serious. Total dealbreaker.

Re: Spotify moves its back end to Google Cloud

#329

Post by Mayzie »

latchkey wrote: post #35

What Google Cloud needs is a better sales story. AWS consistently beats out Google in this respect. This story is welcomed and there should be more success stories published like this. My business is a heavy GC user (AppEngine, Datastore, CloudStorage, BQ, ComputeEngine, ManagedVM) and I couldn't imagine achieving what we have achieved in such a short amount of time on any other platform. We (myself and another guy)…

The only thing that is stopping us from having Google Cloud is lack of an Australian data centre. I'd love to be on Google Cloud, but requirements prevent us from doing so unfortunately :-/

Re: Spotify moves its back end to Google Cloud

#330

Post by sockgrant »

gm3dmo wrote: post #324
bshanks wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google seems to be facing a trust problem here that its competitors don't, due to its history of shutting down popular services, even those that were being used internally and even those that it had been recently hyping to the press. Due to this unusual context, perhaps it would help if Google were to increase this promise from 1 year to 10 years (or 5 years or 3 years).

On the flipside, API's like maps have had stable versions that are deprecated for years.

That's one of the few examples that hasn't burned developer trust. But it's still not a shining example -- there were times of price changes and rate limit changes.
Post reply on HN