21–30 of 37 posts
Meta is planning to spend $65B+ on capex this year. That's a lot of data centers. Why do they need a tiny bit more from Google?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GCP getting second tier TPU allocation b/c TPU cannot be enough to meet GDM needs. At this point, it would be very stupid for external customers betting on TPUs (I am looking at Apple).
> second tier TPU allocation What exactly does this mean?
Meta has been doing the full stack integration of internal software down to machine builds for almost as long as google now; what's the point of outsourcing any of it after 20 years?
is it some capex vs opex game? putting fear in the platform engineering people about losing their jobs?
does anyone know why ? Meta has been doing the full stack integration of internal software down to machine builds for almost as long as google now; what's the point of outsourcing any of it after 20 years? is it some capex vs opex game? putting fear in the platform engineering people about losing their jobs?
Google needs deal this due to flights away from its cloud. It can't compete with Azure for simple/coarse-grained services and AWS for complex/fine-grained services. Atm, Google cloud is only good for cheap high-ram one-run-centric compute (AWS is cheaper for generic compute and reserved compute), simple container execution (Cloud Run), and ~100 TB bulk storage.
> Atm, Google cloud is only good for cheap high-ram one-run-centric compute (AWS is cheaper for generic compute and reserved compute), simple container execution (Cloud Run), and ~100 TB bulk storage. You are crazy if you imply AWS Athena or Azure Synapse are better than BigQuery.
The article is a bit misguided, since it "forgets" to add a bit of context until the penultimate paragraph: Meta is investing 10 times as much in building internal infrastructure capacity — this year alone. This deal is a rounding error (<1.7B / year); and with the scale of cloud costs in general, it's probably even invisible at Meta scale.