Snap commits $2B over 5 years for Google Cloud infrastructure

Post by ben174 » Fri, Feb 03, 2017, 5:39 AM UTC

xux wrote: post #99

randartie wrote: post #50

Needing this amount of resources implies that Snap is expecting huge growth. This sounds like a really bad move on their part and they should have committed to building out their own infrastructure on 'bare metal' over the next 5 years instead. If you read their S-1, they list a dependence on Google cloud as one of their big risk factors. Yet they then go ahead and make this commitment instead of working towards elim…

I love Hacker News, where a random person can tell a company their $2 billion plan on infrastructure is "a really bad move" with authority

Post by nogbit » Fri, Feb 03, 2017, 5:41 AM UTC

secfirstmd wrote: post #71

obulpathi wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nop. By user I mean per person, not company. Now take a deep breath and think about the scale of Google Cloud.

Wow. What takes that much storage per user? Genome sequencing?

Post by fulafel » Fri, Feb 03, 2017, 5:43 AM UTC

andrewstuart2 wrote: post #91

randartie wrote: post #50

Needing this amount of resources implies that Snap is expecting huge growth. This sounds like a really bad move on their part and they should have committed to building out their own infrastructure on 'bare metal' over the next 5 years instead. If you read their S-1, they list a dependence on Google cloud as one of their big risk factors. Yet they then go ahead and make this commitment instead of working towards elim…

Facebook reported $27 billion in revenue in 2016. Snap reported $400 million. You're talking two orders of magnitude lower than Facebook and almost three lower than Google. Snap simply does not have the resources to pour into custom data centers, even if they can raise $2 billion for infra over 5 years. Unless they have serious talent already, they're not going to match Google's massive 15 year investments by a long…

Post by eitally » Fri, Feb 03, 2017, 5:44 AM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #16

user5994461 wrote: post #5

This makes no sense. One cannot spend $33M a month on Google Cloud. (Remember that it's half the price of AWS, and given a contract of that magnitude it's possible that they negotiated yet another half off). The amount of hardware and services one would get for that bill is insane. Snapchat doesn't need that much computing power and storage.

As someone who works for a billion dollar tech company moving to aws, I totally believe that level of spending.

Post by alex-mohr » Fri, Feb 03, 2017, 5:49 AM UTC

hosh wrote: post #102

whalesalad wrote: post #2

If I could do it all over again I would probably opt for Google. The Kubernetes support is wonderful and the overall user experience blows AWS out of the water.

I did do it all over again (at a different company) and tried Google. And it does blow AWS out of the water. I don't regret hand-installing Kubernetes on AWS, if only because I know a lot more about how it works now. But I rather just spin it up with GKE.