> If Google tried to streamline everything...they'd have another cohort of users screaming that the product doesn't meet their needs
Except that they could simplify it without reducing flexibility.
For example, the difference between E-series and N-series is that E-series instances have the whole balancing thing. Instead of being a different instance type, it could be simplified into an option on available types and it would just give you a discount.
Likewise, some of it is about consistency. How much should sustained-usage give you a discount? 20%? 30%? 0%? There seems to be little difference to Google whether sustained-use an E2, N2, N2D, or N1 in terms of their costs and planning and yet the discount varies a lot.
It's not about fewer choices. It's more that the choices aren't internally consistent. N2 instances are supposed to be simply superior to N1 instance, but N1 instances cost the same as N2 instances for 1-year contract, 3-year contract, and on-demand. They're only more expensive for sustained-use which seems odd. Likewise, E2 instances are meant to give you a discount and they do give you a discount for 3 out of the 4 usage scenarios. The point is that there's no real reason for the pricing not to be consistent across the 4 usage scenarios (1-year, 3-year, on-demand, and sustained-use). That's where the complexity creeps in.
It's really easy to look and say, "ok, I have E2, N2D, and N2 instances in ascending price order and I can choose what I want." Except that the pricing doesn't work out consistently.
> N2 instances are likely faster on a per-core basis
Are they meant to be? Google's announcement makes it seem like they should be equivalent: "N2D instances provide savings of up to 13% over comparable N-series instances".
--
The point I'm trying to make isn't that they shouldn't offer choice. It's that the choice should be consistent to be easily understandable. E2 instances should offer a consistent discount. If N2 machines are the same price as N1 machines across 3 usage scenarios, they should be the same price across all 4. When you browse the pricing page, you can get into situations where you start thinking, "ok, the N1 instances are cheaper so do I need the improvements of the N2?" And then you start looking and you're like, "wait, the N2s are the same price....oh, just the same price most of the time." Then you start thinking, "I can certainly deal with the E2's balancing...oh, but it's the same price...well, it's cheaper except for sustained-use".
There doesn't seem to be a reason why sustained-use on N1s should be cheaper for Google than sustained-use on N2s. There doesn't seem to be a reason why sustained-use on E2s offers no discount - especially given that the 1-year E2 price offers the same 37% discount that the N1s offer.
It would be nice to go to the page and say, "I'm going with E2s." However, I go to the page and it's more like, "I'm going with E2s when I am going to do a 1-year commitment, but I'm going with N2Ds when I'm doing sustained-use without a commitment since those are the same price for better hardware with seemingly no reason and the N1s are just equal or more expensive so why don't they just move them to a 'legacy machine types' page". It's the inconsistency in the pricing for seemingly no reason that makes it tough, not the options. The fact that N2Ds are the same monthly price as E2s for sustained-use, but E2s are significantly cheaper in all other scenarios is the type of complexity that's the annoying bit.
EDIT: As an example, E2 instances are 20.7% cheaper on-demand, 20.7% cheaper with 1-year commitment, and 20.7% cheaper with 3-year commitment compared to N2D instances. That's wonderful consistency. Then we look at sustained use and it's 0.9% cheaper with no real explanation why. It's a weird pricing artifact that means that you aren't choosing, "this is the correct machine for the price/performance balance I'm looking for" but rather you're balancing three things: price, performance, and billing scenario.
