Reading this I just want them all to drop the incomprehensible acronyms.
Even the terms wouldn't probably make sense unless you've used them. Elastic Block Storage - I surely didn't get what it was supposed to do when I read it loud the first time. Elastic Container Service - "Why the heck is it Elastic!?" was my reaction the first time I read the term.
There is no Elastic Container Service. ECS stands for EC2 Container Service.
But what about ECS? Lambda? Role Based Authentication? EBS snapshots?
GKE is miles ahead of ECS, and being based on Kubernetes is huge. We don't really have an equivalent to Lambda (yet?) but classic App Engine isn't actually too far off 'technology-wise' (pay per use, containerized, instant start). Our lack of IAM is beyond painful. We're sorry. We're fixing it. PD has had snapshots since Day 1; they're differential, fast and we even encourage people to use them for super-fast "rsync"…
GKE is why I am personally switching from AWS to GCP. I'm running Kubernetes on AWS at my current gig, but I'd rather not have to build and maintain the cluster myself if I don't have to.
Moving to GCE would be great, if they offered to eat the cost of moving all my data off S3 ;)
How much data? 10 TB will "only" cost $900. Alternatively there's the "ship us hard drives" option. Failing that, if you're at a crazy scale, we did announce a switch-and-save program as part of Nearline (https://cloud.google.com/storage-nearline/).
Depending on how much you're storing, the one time hit to move may make sense given our ~25% lower cost per byte (and as you mention way better GCE pricing).
I suspect yes. AWS seems to be pushing hard towards more managed application services (things like lambda) built on top of their core AWS services like EC2 and S3, and they can maintain their margin on those services even if competition drives down the prices on EC2.
Those services are incredibly proprietary to AWS. I really question why companies would want to tie themselves to a single cloud provider.
Do you write everything cross operating system or cross database engine or cross language runtime or cross chipset architecture?
Seriously? You feel it is unfair that Google would talent acquire a company with a founder that revolutionized virtualization and dismiss this with an implication that she was acquired because she knew "the right people" (and you apparently don't) vs. being one of the most impressive people Google could hire to run their cloud business?
And besides this, she's not even an unknown quantity herself. She's been on Google's board for 3 years! :)
I don't understand why the reporters hold Google in such high regard, particularly in the cloud business. Here is a statement from the article: > "At the same time, analysts say, the company’s offerings in cloud development services — computing, storage, data analytics and others — are already comparable to Amazon’s." AWS is far far ahead of GC and it is in no way comparable. Plus the ecosystem around AWS has evolved…
In the ones they mentioned, GCE vs EC2, GCS vs S3, and BigQuery vs Redshift, they seem pretty comparable to me.
Market share difference must be something like 10x
Did Diane's bebop even launch? I can't find their website. It is kind of frustrating that everybody involved (employees, investors) in bebop are getting a payday, without really putting in much work, or verifying their ideas. Just leaves a sour taste in my mouth (old boys network) as a two-time failed entrepreneur.
I have no personal knowledge of Diane, but I do know people who have worked closely with her and they have very good things to say. They are people who do not often have good things to say. So the bit would stay un-flipped for me.
Did Diane's bebop even launch? I can't find their website. It is kind of frustrating that everybody involved (employees, investors) in bebop are getting a payday, without really putting in much work, or verifying their ideas. Just leaves a sour taste in my mouth (old boys network) as a two-time failed entrepreneur.
Google thinks bebop is better than whatever they could do internally (including finding people to hire up) to build a comparable product for that budget.
An easy area of improvement is documentation, samples etc. They are seriously lagging behind AWS and Azure. Becomes hard to choose Google because the cost of learning is higher.
I dunno, I've found aws documentation to be atrocious. For example, I've had a very hard time figuring out how to do things like reattaching ebs volumes to ec2 spot instances. Maybe it's because I don't use aws much, but I get frustrated and have a hard time understanding how simple tasks need to be so complex. I wonder how effective the Microsoft style API lockin strategy will be for aws. My personal guess is very e…
I second this. I like digital ocean a lot for the simplicity and the community. Obviously, it takes a much more bare bones approach, but being greeted with 50 icons on your dashboard, each of them a proprietary product and cost/second pricing services makes it super hard to figure out what you even are paying, much less receiving.
Moving to GCE would be great, if they offered to eat the cost of moving all my data off S3 ;)
How much data? 10 TB will "only" cost $900. Alternatively there's the "ship us hard drives" option. Failing that, if you're at a crazy scale, we did announce a switch-and-save program as part of Nearline ( https://cloud.google.com/storage-nearline/ ). Depending on how much you're storing, the one time hit to move may make sense given our ~25% lower cost per byte (and as you mention way better GCE pricing).
How'd you arrive at that number? To my understanding, you get hit up twice -- paying for data leaving S3 and data entering GCS. The other thing to keep in mind is that if lots of your customers are also using AWS, their S3 traffic from you is free.