5 ms·

I cannot agree with that. Google Cloud services are way too small comparing to AWS or Azure and they don't make a lot of money with it. They can discontinue it

I cannot agree with that. Google Cloud services are way too small comparing to AWS or Azure and they don't make a lot of money with it. They can discontinue it easily.

williamstein 10y ago
+1 -- Sometimes Google does embrace open source in building services that I can trust longterm, e.g., Kubernetes. I wish Firebase (which I won't use) were being built and marketed in a similar way to Kubernetes (which I will use).
velohx 10y ago
This is sarcasm, right? Here's some more equivalent sarcasm: Gmail and Google Search could discontinue easily.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Search, hardly. But Gmail? What happens when Google decides they're not monetizing Gmail sufficiently and force everyone to Inbox? What then!
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  You're comparing their mature businesses to their nascent cloud business. Their market share in the latter is still a fraction of the leaders'. It's very possible that Google may "lose the cloud".
dandelany 10y ago
GCS is relatively small today, but it's growing fast, and Google is investing a ton of money and resources into it right now. They've added a bunch of new systems and promised more coming soon. They also just signed a huge deal to host all of Spotify's data. Cloud Services aren't going anywhere, in fact my perception is that Google would like them to replace advertising as their #1 moneymaker.
manigandham 10y ago
Google Cloud is way more advanced than both AWS and Azure in many ways and just as big in capacity, if not customers yet. Cloud computing will likely be more profitable than ads in the future for them and they announced billions in new investment just a few months ago to build out the platform further. It's not going anywhere.
- ignoramous 10y ago
  > Google Cloud is way more advanced than both AWS and Azure in many ways I see this being thrown around here a lot. Buying into Google's PR is what this is. If you've valid points apart from BigQuery vs RedShift, I'd request you to enumerate them for me. I have personally interacted with Googlers who lament the fact that 'no one internally bothers using most of GCP' and hence not being able to 'iterate/innovate as fast as AWS' is a key disadvantage despite their 'superior offerings', whatever that means.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    > Buying into Google's PR is what this is Really? Have you actually used it or done any research? 1. Container Engine = built on kubernetes, faster and easier than the others 2. Compute Engine = VMs start faster, customizable rather than set sizes, live migration when the host has maintenance or starts to fail, NVME SSDs available with < 1ms latency 3. Networking = faster and more consistent performance, all the regions are connected which makes cross-regional/global deployments easier and more secure 4. Load balancing = actually routes the traffic automatically to the closest region and spills over based on capacity, not just DNS junk like the rest, no warmup or latency issues 5. CDN interconnects = cheaper bandwidth and lower latency using their partner CDN networks 6. Pub/Sub = great message system that doesnt need shards or anything to deal with for scaling, supports multiple subscribers and acks 7. gcloud = best shell access available to interact with pretty much everything, no keys or passwords to worry about 8. grpc APIs, fast storage/nearline, bigtable/datastore/cloud sql, Vision API, etc Yes it's still new and there are a few frustrating issues, and AWS and Azure do have lots of products and their own special offerings, but the core Google platform is the amazing at running a bunch of servers/containers for a globally distributed app with high performance. We've tried them all and GCP has been the best so far.

I cannot agree with that. Google Cloud services are way too small comparing to AWS or Azure and they don't make a lot of money with it. They can discontinue it easily.

williamstein 10y ago

+1 -- Sometimes Google does embrace open source in building services that I can trust longterm, e.g., Kubernetes. I wish Firebase (which I won't use) were being built and marketed in a similar way to Kubernetes (which I will use).

velohx 10y ago

This is sarcasm, right? Here's some more equivalent sarcasm: Gmail and Google Search could discontinue easily.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Search, hardly. But Gmail? What happens when Google decides they're not monetizing Gmail sufficiently and force everyone to Inbox? What then!
unclebucknasty 10y ago
You're comparing their mature businesses to their nascent cloud business. Their market share in the latter is still a fraction of the leaders'. It's very possible that Google may "lose the cloud".

dandelany 10y ago

GCS is relatively small today, but it's growing fast, and Google is investing a ton of money and resources into it right now. They've added a bunch of new systems and promised more coming soon. They also just signed a huge deal to host all of Spotify's data. Cloud Services aren't going anywhere, in fact my perception is that Google would like them to replace advertising as their #1 moneymaker.

manigandham 10y ago

Google Cloud is way more advanced than both AWS and Azure in many ways and just as big in capacity, if not customers yet. Cloud computing will likely be more profitable than ads in the future for them and they announced billions in new investment just a few months ago to build out the platform further. It's not going anywhere.

ignoramous 10y ago
> Google Cloud is way more advanced than both AWS and Azure in many ways I see this being thrown around here a lot. Buying into Google's PR is what this is. If you've valid points apart from BigQuery vs RedShift, I'd request you to enumerate them for me. I have personally interacted with Googlers who lament the fact that 'no one internally bothers using most of GCP' and hence not being able to 'iterate/innovate as fast as AWS' is a key disadvantage despite their 'superior offerings', whatever that means.
- manigandham 10y ago
  > Buying into Google's PR is what this is Really? Have you actually used it or done any research? 1. Container Engine = built on kubernetes, faster and easier than the others 2. Compute Engine = VMs start faster, customizable rather than set sizes, live migration when the host has maintenance or starts to fail, NVME SSDs available with < 1ms latency 3. Networking = faster and more consistent performance, all the regions are connected which makes cross-regional/global deployments easier and more secure 4. Load balancing = actually routes the traffic automatically to the closest region and spills over based on capacity, not just DNS junk like the rest, no warmup or latency issues 5. CDN interconnects = cheaper bandwidth and lower latency using their partner CDN networks 6. Pub/Sub = great message system that doesnt need shards or anything to deal with for scaling, supports multiple subscribers and acks 7. gcloud = best shell access available to interact with pretty much everything, no keys or passwords to worry about 8. grpc APIs, fast storage/nearline, bigtable/datastore/cloud sql, Vision API, etc Yes it's still new and there are a few frustrating issues, and AWS and Azure do have lots of products and their own special offerings, but the core Google platform is the amazing at running a bunch of servers/containers for a globally distributed app with high performance. We've tried them all and GCP has been the best so far.