Moving the NYT Games Platform to Google Cloud With Zero Downtime
open.nytimes.com
Moving the NYT Games Platform to Google Cloud With Zero Downtime
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: Moving the NYT Games Platform to Google Cloud With Zero Downtime
#2Doesn't this lead to vendor lock-in? All these Google proprietary services seem like they would be a big issue if they decide for whatever reason to migrate away from GCP.
Re: Moving the NYT Games Platform to Google Cloud With Zero Downtime
#3Doesn't this lead to vendor lock-in? All these Google proprietary services seem like they would be a big issue if they decide for whatever reason to migrate away from GCP.
It’s actually double lock-in, so 2x worse.
You used to have to just be afraid of lock-in, which I don’t think is as big an issue as it sometimes seems.
But with Google, you’re not only locked in but might be LOCKED OUT when they kill your product.
Re: Moving the NYT Games Platform to Google Cloud With Zero Downtime
#4Doesn't this lead to vendor lock-in? All these Google proprietary services seem like they would be a big issue if they decide for whatever reason to migrate away from GCP.
They can rewrite it again on the next cool lang (rust,kotlin etc) using nanoservices and some new per-column/second-pricing db.
Re: Moving the NYT Games Platform to Google Cloud With Zero Downtime
#5Doesn't this lead to vendor lock-in? All these Google proprietary services seem like they would be a big issue if they decide for whatever reason to migrate away from GCP.
It’s actually double lock-in, so 2x worse. You used to have to just be afraid of lock-in, which I don’t think is as big an issue as it sometimes seems. But with Google, you’re not only locked in but might be LOCKED OUT when they kill your product.
Don’t be ridiculous. Google killing a feed reader is a way different from Google killing a cloud service with paying customers and SLA agreements.
Re: Moving the NYT Games Platform to Google Cloud With Zero Downtime
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s actually double lock-in, so 2x worse. You used to have to just be afraid of lock-in, which I don’t think is as big an issue as it sometimes seems. But with Google, you’re not only locked in but might be LOCKED OUT when they kill your product.
Don’t be ridiculous. Google killing a feed reader is a way different from Google killing a cloud service with paying customers and SLA agreements.
Like the QPX Express API?
Re: Moving the NYT Games Platform to Google Cloud With Zero Downtime
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s actually double lock-in, so 2x worse. You used to have to just be afraid of lock-in, which I don’t think is as big an issue as it sometimes seems. But with Google, you’re not only locked in but might be LOCKED OUT when they kill your product.
Don’t be ridiculous. Google killing a feed reader is a way different from Google killing a cloud service with paying customers and SLA agreements.
?? This happened before.
Re: Moving the NYT Games Platform to Google Cloud With Zero Downtime
#8Is anyone else curious why the NYT uses Medium? Their own website is literally about reading stuff
(Sorry if this is off-topic)
Re: Moving the NYT Games Platform to Google Cloud With Zero Downtime
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t be ridiculous. Google killing a feed reader is a way different from Google killing a cloud service with paying customers and SLA agreements.
Like the QPX Express API?
Interesting point. However that’s not a google cloud product and never had an SLA (the QBX FAQ says “we do not guarantee support”). It’s also a unique case because of its reliance on third party data vendors.
If google starts killing their cloud products, I will eat my socks. Just let me wash them first.
Re: Moving the NYT Games Platform to Google Cloud With Zero Downtime
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s actually double lock-in, so 2x worse. You used to have to just be afraid of lock-in, which I don’t think is as big an issue as it sometimes seems. But with Google, you’re not only locked in but might be LOCKED OUT when they kill your product.
Don’t be ridiculous. Google killing a feed reader is a way different from Google killing a cloud service with paying customers and SLA agreements.
This is from their legal agreement:
7.1 Discontinuance of Services. Subject to Section 7.2, Google may discontinue any Services or any portion or feature for any reason at any time without liability to Customer.
7.2 Deprecation Policy. Google will announce if it intends to discontinue or make backwards incompatible changes to the Services specified at the URL in the next sentence. Google will use commercially reasonable efforts to continue to operate those Services versions and features identified at https://cloud.google.com/terms/deprecation without these changes for at least one year after that announcement, unless (as Google determines in its reasonable good faith judgment)
So technically they can do it, though their enterprise customers likely have stronger agreements that require at least X time (probably 1 year) notice