Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alphabet earnings show Google Cloud on $10B run rate

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 216 posts

Re: Alphabet earnings show Google Cloud on $10B run rate

#71

Post by pingyong »

killjoywashere wrote: post #63
pingyong wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cloud provider that specializes in compute will have vastly higher energy costs than a cloud provider that specializes in storage. Even without explicit specialization, it's not unreasonable to assume that the distribution of compute-heavy and storage-heavy customers is quite different between providers. So you'd have to sort of calculate that out. But if you do that, I'm not sure what would even differentiate them…

> I'm not sure what would even differentiate them Distance from carbon-neutrality per dollar of revenue sounds like a good start.

Sure but that's going to mainly depend on where their energy comes from, not how much they use.

Re: Alphabet earnings show Google Cloud on $10B run rate

#72

Post by glenneroo »

Spare_account wrote: post #20
PietdeVries wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it redirects to a page from https://guce.advertising.com , telling me my browser is out of date and that I have to go to browsehappy.com to get a new one...

uMatrix blocked me from viewing guce.advertising.com I disabled uMatrix in a Private tab but my pihole blocked advertising.com too. I nearly gave up thinking "I don't need to see TechCrunch, their loss" but then I remembered the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20200206070011/https://techcrunc... The article loads but after a few seconds it auto forwards to a page that doesn't exist on the TechCrunch site…

> I get about 3 seconds to read it.

This trick apparently still works: after the page loads and before it disappears, hit ESC. Instant-freeze and you can read the article! :)

Re: Alphabet earnings show Google Cloud on $10B run rate

#73

Post by scarface74 »

random001 wrote: post #67
scarface74 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will this meme please die. https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-q1-2020-earnings-reven... Office is not counted in cloud. It’s counted in “Productivity and Business Processes”.

Office 365 and Azure with other cloud based services is still counted under the 'Commercial Cloud' division. I'm sure that's what op is referring to and with G Suite and GCP under the Google Cloud division.

No it’s not. It’s clearly delineated. As “Productivity and Business Process””

Re: Alphabet earnings show Google Cloud on $10B run rate

#74

Post by cowsandmilk »

davedx wrote: post #43

Does anyone know if there are numbers somewhere for how much energy the different cloud providers use? Would be interesting to see which is more efficient from that perspective for those of us who care about such things. Energy per $ revenue or even better per compute would be helpful.

Should I expect ARM processors to be the most energy efficient for compute? Eg if I’m in AWS, should I be choosing graviton instances?

Re: Alphabet earnings show Google Cloud on $10B run rate

#75

Post by scarface74 »

random001 wrote: post #69
QuinnyPig wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right?! Microsoft is very clear about its Intelligent Cloud section. I’m having trouble finding its Elastic Moron Cloud section breakout, though.

I'm new here, so are you that snarky Twitter guy with an open jaw pic as a profile pic? I'm not sure if you still consider an at least 8 billion dollar annual revenue run rate business (GCP) as a 'hobby'.

Is it profitable? There was just a widely publicized rumor that Google execs weren’t happy about GCP’s profit.

Re: Alphabet earnings show Google Cloud on $10B run rate

#76

Post by random001 »

bhouston wrote: post #14
georgewfraser wrote: post #3

I would really love to know what the quarterly revenue is for just compute and storage, for each of the major cloud providers. Including things like G Suite and Office 365 just muddies the waters.

I completely agree. Both Microsoft and Google only release inflated cloud numbers, I guess to look more competitive with Amazon. This way Google only looks like a 1/4 of Amazon rather than maybe 1/8.... Edit: according to other comments Microsoft's numbers are no longer inflated.

It's still inflated because azure revenue is counted with other server products like Windows Server, SQL server and Enterprise mobility under the 'Intelligent Cloud' division.

Re: Alphabet earnings show Google Cloud on $10B run rate

#77

Post by random001 »

random001 wrote: post #67
scarface74 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will this meme please die. https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-q1-2020-earnings-reven... Office is not counted in cloud. It’s counted in “Productivity and Business Processes”.

Office 365 and Azure with other cloud based services is still counted under the 'Commercial Cloud' division. I'm sure that's what op is referring to and with G Suite and GCP under the Google Cloud division.

I was wrong, MS seems to have changed its revenue disclosing methodology but it's still not clear how much Azure generates as it's lumped with Windows server, SQL server and Enterprise mobility under the 'Intelligent Cloud' division.

Re: Alphabet earnings show Google Cloud on $10B run rate

#78

Post by random001 »

scarface74 wrote: post #75
random001 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm new here, so are you that snarky Twitter guy with an open jaw pic as a profile pic? I'm not sure if you still consider an at least 8 billion dollar annual revenue run rate business (GCP) as a 'hobby'.

Is it profitable? There was just a widely publicized rumor that Google execs weren’t happy about GCP’s profit.

I think it's not.

Re: Alphabet earnings show Google Cloud on $10B run rate

#79

Post by tedunangst »

f_allwein wrote: post #48
davedx wrote: post #43

Does anyone know if there are numbers somewhere for how much energy the different cloud providers use? Would be interesting to see which is more efficient from that perspective for those of us who care about such things. Energy per $ revenue or even better per compute would be helpful.

Google found this: https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-google-microsoft-green-cl...

How effective are carbon credits at eliminating footprint? If company X runs an efficient datacenter with 80 GW wind and 20 GW coal power, and company Y runs a dumpy datacenter with 200 GW coal power, but company Y buys 200 credits, is company X still the one doing the most harm?

Re: Alphabet earnings show Google Cloud on $10B run rate

#80

Post by Cthulhu_ »

killjoywashere wrote: post #63
pingyong wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A cloud provider that specializes in compute will have vastly higher energy costs than a cloud provider that specializes in storage. Even without explicit specialization, it's not unreasonable to assume that the distribution of compute-heavy and storage-heavy customers is quite different between providers. So you'd have to sort of calculate that out. But if you do that, I'm not sure what would even differentiate them…

> I'm not sure what would even differentiate them Distance from carbon-neutrality per dollar of revenue sounds like a good start.

Carbon neutrality is a flawed statistic IMO and can be doctored with a lot - e.g. if Google pays a company X to plant an amount of trees, who's to say that neutralizes carbon?

Keep it simple, just publish how much power they're using and what the sources are.

Post reply on HN