71–80 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just a card to be in the game, it's hardly their mainline product.
My Lightsail gives me 3TB. It's a huge card for me. The only reason I use them at all for hosting.
But most of their money comes from the Netflixes and the Adobes of the world, not from mom-and-pop stores :p
A long standing complaint of mine is that Cloud egress pricing severely limits the usefulness of compute. If I want to say process some visual effects on a large (1TB) ProRes video, I might spend $1 on the compute but $100 on the egress getting it back. Unfortunately these changes don't really resolve that problem. "Standard" pricing is a paltry 20% less. That 1TB video egress still costs $80 and for that price I can…
>>> ... costs $80 and for that price I can rent a beefy server with a dedicated gigabit pipe for a month. No you can't. One doesn't get dedicated gigabit for that price.
I quite like the way Google has drawn the map here-since no cables reach from India to Europe, they've split the map there making the paths easier to trace between Asia and NA. https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QvF57n-55Cs/WZypui8H8zI/AAAAAAAAE... Compare with the difficulties of https://cloud.google.com/images/locations/edgepoint.png Elegant and subtle work. Just like the networking.
A few notes here: - An unmentioned alternative to this pricing is that GCP has a deal with Cloudflare that gives you a 50% discount to what is now called Premium pricing for traffic that egresses GCP through Cloudflare. This is cheaper for Google because GCP and Cloudflare have a peering arrangement. Of course, you also have to pay Cloudflare for bandwidth. - This announcement is actually a small price cut compared t…
I personally still hold that pay-per-use pricing is the cloud native approach [2], the most cost-efficient, and the most customer-friendly. However, it's unfamiliar and hard to predict, so starting out on Flat Rate pricing as a first step makes sense.
( work at Google and was a part of the team that introduced BQ Flat Rate)
[0] https://cloud.google.com/bigquery/pricing#flat_rate_pricing
[1] https://hackernoon.com/why-googles-answer-to-aws-reseved-ins...
[2] https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2016/02/visualizing-t...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Numerous cables under the Atlantic, their network map is quite something. https://cloud.google.com/about/locations/#network-tab
Are they exclusive owner/builders of any of those? I know I've seen a number of cables which Google was a part investor/owner in, but sole ownership would be amazing.
I doubt that anyone would keep ALL of them for themselves.
How is this different from paying more for a fast lane, which net neutrality is supposed to prevent? Edit: there seems to be a bit of confusion what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the Open Internet Order of 2015 [1] which states: 18. No Paid Prioritization. Paid prioritization occurs when a broadband provider accepts payment (monetary or otherwise) to manage its network in a way that benefits particular content,…
IMO net neutrality was never about equality of outcomes (there's probably not really any way to equalize performance short of socializing the Internet), but that seems to be a common misconception.
A long standing complaint of mine is that Cloud egress pricing severely limits the usefulness of compute. If I want to say process some visual effects on a large (1TB) ProRes video, I might spend $1 on the compute but $100 on the egress getting it back. Unfortunately these changes don't really resolve that problem. "Standard" pricing is a paltry 20% less. That 1TB video egress still costs $80 and for that price I can…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing is being discriminated or artificially slowed down. You pay to use their private network. Standard tier means you leave their private network and move onto the public internet, which would be more open to ISP net neutrality issues if anything.
You are aware that the Internet is a collection of different companies running different networks, right? Google's network that is serving public traffic is part of the Internet. The inter-network routing decisions that are made are literally the crux of the net neutrality arguments made so far.
As a typical consumer, this negotiation is out of your hands with ISPs balancing performance and profit (although tilted towards the latter) but as a Google Cloud customer, you now have some control over how much of their network you use - all the way to the edge or just regional - without any discrimination of the traffic itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not differentiating by content, you're paying for a different service tier. It's like saying getting faster internet by paying for Comcast Business violates net neutrality.
One of the primary consumer arguments in favor of net neutrality was that ISPs advertised bandwidth at certain speeds, and therefore were obligated to provide that speed to any point on the Internet. Using that same argument, Google should be obligated to provide maximum interface speed from any of their compute instances to any point on the internet, and should not be allowed to sell a tier that gets closer to that…
really? even a good ten years ago when i was looking for apartments with good DSL speeds, it was always well explained that bandwidth listing was an ideal number that didn't apply to things outside the ISP's direct control.
So now we know why Google's egress was so expensive before. It was the premium offering, and standard wasn't quite ready yet.
It used to be 10x dedicated server traffic pricing ... and it still pretty much is. Let's say it's now 8x.
This won't make a difference in any practical comparison.