Google Brass Set 2023 as Deadline to Beat Amazon, Microsoft in Cloud

Post by tozeur » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:58 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #9

If they pour all of their efforts into customer experience, maybe they can stay in the game. I personally am terrified of using Google Cloud. I'm afraid something will go wrong and I won't be able to talk to a human. I've heard so many stories about the "stone wall" that is Google customer support. Also, I'm afraid the rug will get pulled out from under me if I decide to go all in given their history of axing project…

Post by brown9-2 » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 6:59 PM UTC

yc_2345 wrote: post #184

I have sometimes wondered why they don't offer a separate, uncomplicated fixed price (and bounded resource) version - basically like a Heroku - and provide a migration path to their core offerings.

Post by harryh » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 7:01 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #205

harryh wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could even sell most of the products they murder to someone else for millions. It would have cost Google more money to sell Reader than anyone would have bought it for.

That's a statement that cries out for analysis, although I'm not doubting you could be right still - it's not the kind of thing one just states without backing it up.

Post by jabart » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #85

Despegar wrote: post #7

I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I saw this headline on Twitter. It's just kisses fingers . So now that everyone knows they are waffling on whether to stay in the business (and have a deadline), Microsoft and Amazon just need to increase the competitive intensity for the next few years to drive Google out and instead of cloud computing being an oligopoly it'll be a duopoly. If you're a startup you should serio…

If you're a startup you should seriously consider colocation for as many of your workloads as possible The vast majority of startups do not succeed or fail based upon their ability to control their datacenter spend. They succeed or fail based upon their ability to attract customers and grow revenue. Colocating and managing your own servers instead of taking advantage of the ease of using the cloud will only be a dist…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Dec 17, 2019, 7:05 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #164

jcrites wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article claims, if I understood it correctly, that GCP will not be profitable unless it reaches the scale of being at least #2. The implication is that economies of scale are necessary for profitability. For example, in 2014, James Hamilton spoke about how every day that year, AWS was adding enough new server capacity to support all of Amazon's global infrastructure when it was a $7B annual revenue enterprise (20…

But there's a subtle difference between being big enough to make profits and ranking. If you need X amount of business to make profits, why does it matter whether one or two guys make X+ ? If you take your SpaceX example, they need to launch some number of rockets. So what if someone else is launching more? Why isn't the minimum expressed as a % of the market for example?