421–430 of 856 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think Google internally uses GCP. So a direct competitor would be whoever runs the “real” google cloud that all the internal stuff.
Wait, what? GCP isn't just the productization of their internal infrastructure?
Google offers the Google name and a reputation for ditching services when the wind shifts. They really have little or no competitive advantage here. I'd personally rather build atop Linode or Digital Ocean than Google or at most, stick to the middle of the road, most generic parts of Google's platform.
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/google-brass-set-202... ?pu=hackernewsyw3xln&utm_source=hackernews&utm_medium=unlock
How did it end up with utm_source=hackernews in the url? Dang is this something you change or is it user submitted?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, what? GCP isn't just the productization of their internal infrastructure?
Neither is AWS, or Azure. Cloud platforms are their own product. Only one company needs Google's internal infrastructure. That company is called Google. The lessons learned in building those systems can be applied to more generalized solutions which can be sold as standalone products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve had a similar experience where I could email PMs and we even had Google forward deployed engineers on-site. The trouble is that their customer service is terrible. We reported numerous issues and there was no tracking at all. For one UI bug in their webapp, a PM completely disregarded the reproduction instructions I gave him and made me have a half-hour kong Hangout with a remote engineer to prove the bug existe…
I had a 4 roundtrip email thread with their support over a speech API bug. Eventually sent them a narrated step-by-step screencast, and the guy is finally like "oh, it's not supposed to work that way." (Yes, that's what I said in e-mail 1!)
I think in general, scaling support for such complex a product that’s constantly changing is really difficult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now that we know they're not invested in a Google cloud beyond 2023 I have no clue how anyone could arrive at that interpretation. What exactly let you to that conclusion?
Since at least as of this writing, nobody else has mentioned this, and it's always someone's day [1] to hear something the first time, this is a variant of something that goes very far back in our industry called the Osbourne Effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect The traditional Osbourne Effect that earned the original namesake is to announce your v2 product a long time before it's available, thus tras…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm fairly certain Google Cloud is not profitable. Even if it is profitable, Google will divest from business that don't hit a certain scale (billion $ businesses). Basically their goal is to never have employees staffed on projects which yield a low $ / employee ratio. They will invest for a while, but pull the plug after some arbitrary time if it doesn't hit the scale.
Exactly, which is the exact opposite of what AWS is doing. They have how many services that very few people use now? But at least they respect their customers and view the cost of running those services as goodwill for their customers.
[1] https://www.theinformation.com/articles/amazon-learns-a-new-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait, what? GCP isn't just the productization of their internal infrastructure?
Neither is AWS, or Azure. Cloud platforms are their own product. Only one company needs Google's internal infrastructure. That company is called Google. The lessons learned in building those systems can be applied to more generalized solutions which can be sold as standalone products.
This article lists some of the AWS services that now power Amazon.com since they moved away from Oracle. So, while it may not have been true in the past, it does now appear that AWS powers a significant portion of Amazon.com.
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/migration-complete-amazons-...
They put the guy that ran ORACLE'S CLOUD STRATEGY in charge of GCP. ORACLE'S. CLOUD. STRATEGY. Let's hire Thomas Kurian, bang up job on Fusion and ... oh wait, what do you mean with 'total failure'? Oracle bought Sun, it had the keys to be the third force against AWS and MSFT - and they totally blew it. Just an amazing fumble, worse than MSFT and smartphones.
I think the logic was a recognition of how badly Google sucks in enterprise. Therefore the goal was to hire someone who embodied "enterprise" albeit in all aspects.
And that is not a surprise since Google's culture is to get rid of the human / customers interaction and wants to automate everything. But in real world all business are conducted by person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I picture search engine team laughing secretly (or openly?) looking at this post? Is that an accurate imagination? I don't work at google so I have no idea of knowing what it's like.
Why? They're the people (including ads) that keep the company afloat. GCP is just another sideshow, albeit a large one.