51–60 of 175 posts
tldr; competition is good. Google Cloud UI is vastly superior to AWS. It's clear to me AWS didn't put a lot of effort into their interface, Google console is nice too in order to quickly experiment with the platform. On the other hand, it seems to me that AWS is still cheaper than GCloud right now.
Having worked at both places for ~4 years each, I would say Amazon is much more of a product company, and a platform is really a collection of compelling products. Amazon really puts customers first. Their platform and organization are made up of small teams that own services with well-defined interfaces, accountable for customer metrics. All profits are reinvested, so resources and perks are scarce, efficiency matte…
Amazon gives each team independence. Therefore it is virtually impossible to insist on consistency between what different teams do. Each team makes sense on its own, but the whole can be very, very confusing.
Google has a process that results in much greater internal consistency. It may not be a great UX, but it is consistent. Inside and out.
For small systems, Amazon is going to give a better UX. But for a complex system, I prefer what Google will produce.
Having worked at both places for ~4 years each, I would say Amazon is much more of a product company, and a platform is really a collection of compelling products. Amazon really puts customers first. Their platform and organization are made up of small teams that own services with well-defined interfaces, accountable for customer metrics. All profits are reinvested, so resources and perks are scarce, efficiency matte…
App Engine was a precursor that came 5 years too early.
The hype about serverless is only starting now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dirt cheap computing is like the life line of Google. W/o that, nothing Google did can sustain at all.
Just curious on your thoughts, are not most modern companies (startups) dependent on cheap computing (+ smart folks)?
Having worked at both places for ~4 years each, I would say Amazon is much more of a product company, and a platform is really a collection of compelling products. Amazon really puts customers first. Their platform and organization are made up of small teams that own services with well-defined interfaces, accountable for customer metrics. All profits are reinvested, so resources and perks are scarce, efficiency matte…
I would state the tradeoff very differently. Amazon gives each team independence. Therefore it is virtually impossible to insist on consistency between what different teams do. Each team makes sense on its own, but the whole can be very, very confusing. Google has a process that results in much greater internal consistency. It may not be a great UX, but it is consistent. Inside and out. For small systems, Amazon is g…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd argue that Amazon isn't a successful company, they are a popular company with a few large successes surrounded by decaying and decrepit failures that won't die. But then again I'm biased. Couldn't you say the same thing about Google, or Microsoft? I think the point of 'success' is that your big wins outweigh your failures as determined by your revenue. Is it not? Creating the largest retailer in the world and t…
>Couldn't you say the same thing about Google, or Microsoft? I think the point of 'success' is that your big wins outweigh your failures as determined by your revenue. Is it not? Of course it is. And by that definition, Amazon isn't successful, and nowhere in the same league as Google or Amazon. Not yet, at least. They've managed to break even more or less, but it is still yet to be determined if they can become the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be nice if they managed the transfer themselves via AWS Snowball. Sure, they would have upfront costs, but based on what I spend on AWS monthly, it's probably worth it to them.
Why would you want to move data between AWS and GCP using a hard drive? The networks between the two cloud providers are immense.
So a back of envelope calculation says that it would take around 10 days to transfer 100 PiB over Gigabit ethernet. When you say immense, do you mean faster than that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UI doesn't really matter for people with enough instances to care about money. Nobody is going to blow $1,000/mo because the interface is nicer.
Really? Because slack is IRC with a nicer UI. There are many examples of this. Executives love slick UIs and flashy dashboards. Executives have a lot of power.
I want to try out Google, but they need to make it easier to try it out. I have petabytes of data in S3 that I would need to move first (at least some of it).
Email me at bookman@google.com and I'll be sure to start internal conversations around what we can do to help you out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you want to move data between AWS and GCP using a hard drive? The networks between the two cloud providers are immense.
I didn't realize that they have direct connections. The AWS data center down the street (Virginia) is directly connected to some google cloud datacenter? Sorry - I'm generally ignorant of datacenter technology. So a back of envelope calculation says that it would take around 10 days to transfer 100 PiB over Gigabit ethernet. When you say immense, do you mean faster than that?