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

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 311 posts

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

#121

Post by omarforgotpwd »

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…

True, but what's the opportunity cost of transitioning to bare metal? Is it worth slowing down development / feature releases / possible service outages? In the time it takes to transition, is it possible that cloud actually becomes cheaper than running your own infrastructure?

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

#122

Post by bogomipz »

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

A "random person"?

How about a HN reader who is taking part in a discussion? They offered their view and why they believe that. Nowhere did they they claim "authority." Unlike your snide commentary they are actually contributing to the conversation.

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

#123

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

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

#124

Post by deepnotderp »

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

Pretty sure HN readers work at these companies...

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

#125

Post by patrickg_zill »

ashayh wrote: post #68
toomuchtodo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why opt for Google if you're going to use containers in Kubernetes? You then become cloud agnostic. You can even move to your own datacenter at some point (relatively) easily. Dropbox built out their own environment (and did it migrating 500PB out of S3) [1] [1a]. As did Twitter [2]. And Facebook [3]. And GitLab [4] (too soon?) As well as Mixpanel [5]. Even Twilio is multi-cloud (last time I checked it was split betw…

Whether you want to run fully in the cloud, or homegrown DCs or a combination, you need talented people who bring the required savings about. When it comes to in house DCs, very few companies seem to have that top talent. For example, most companies are simply buying regular Dell/HP servers, Cisco switches/routers, slapping them in cabinets and calling it a day. They simply do not know how to take advantage of high d…

It doesn't take "top talent" to run the physical side of the DC. It takes processes and detail-oriented people who care.

At this point, with datacenters having been in wide production for the last 20 years, there should be plenty of 7+ year veterans.

(though yes, I have known in-house service providers that couldn't set up a new VM to save their life)

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

#126

Post by late2part »

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

That random person is right. One can run a DC at scale of 50 racks at least 20% cheaper than GCP. That's $80M a year to hire 20 smart people at $2M a year and 200 reasonably smart people at $200k per year. Snap will vanish like their pictures.

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

#127

Post by visakanv »

ben174 wrote: post #111
xux wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To be fair, that company is run by these same 'random persons' that are commenting here.

That doesn't mean anything, though. "Some people who do X also do Y" does not imply that "people who do Y are qualified to comment on X."

For example: Elon Musk is a Twitter user. I too am a Twitter user. So's Kylie Jenner, Donald Trump, and random spambots. Using the same service does not mean they're equally qualified to speak with authority about the same things.

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

#128

Post by late2part »

matt_wulfeck wrote: post #89
Alex3917 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Needing this amount of resources implies that Snap is expecting huge growth. It's a hedge. If they don't grow as rapidly as expected then they're betting that someone else will buy the excess reserved capacity from them for close to market rates. So in the case that they only use 1.5 billion dollars worth of hosting, they're betting that they'll be out, say, $25M rather than $500M. On the other hand they want to ma…

I've never heard of anyone buying excess cloud capacity from a private party. Is this a thing? Is there a market for this? Sounds like a security nightmare.

You're right. The deals businesses do at this level preclude you from selling the resources you've purchased at a discount to another party.

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

#129

Post by late2part »

nikcub wrote: post #61
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…

There is nothing about using cloud services that makes this a unique risk factor. With self-hosting replace "Google" with the companies own name and list all the things that can go wrong - it's pretty standard for a tech co. S1. For ex. this is Twitter's risk item for running hosted services: > Our business and operating results may be harmed by a disruption in our service, or by our failure to timely and effectively…

So outsource the risk so you can blame someone else? Maybe....

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

#130

Post by patrickg_zill »

stevenj wrote: post #74
georgeott wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will Snap exist in 5 years?

Yes. If anyone wants to bet against them existing, I'll take the bet.

I would bet that they don't end up completing the terms of the Google contract as signed; and that it would be heavily modified by year 3 of the contract.
Post reply on HN