3 ms·

At a certain point, I think Google could probably defend this even to outsiders with "we're too important". It might be good if Youtube or something else big-b

At a certain point, I think Google could probably defend this even to outsiders with "we're too important". It might be good if Youtube or something else big-but-tangential was on the line when GCE changes went out. Search, though? It dropped globally for 2 minutes in 2013, and took out 40% of internet traffic in the process. There's a real argument that it's critical infrastructure like little else, since Google and Bing are the way most users have of reaching sites other than the core Facebook-Amazon-Yahoo locations. More dogfooding wouldn't be a bad change overall, but people counting on Search and Gmail would probably prefer a minimal-downtime solution no matter how it's implemented.

bkeroack 10y ago
Oh I totally get why they do it. When you're an exec in charge of a ~$75B revenue stream[0] when the GCE people come to you I totally get saying "Nah, let's leave it alone for now". But like Steve Yegge said in his classic rant[1], when you're behind in the market you have to launch your cloud product (which is really just a subset of the "platform" problem Yegge was actually writing about) "...all at once, for real, no cheating". If you don't have the organizational courage to take big risks, well I guess you deserve your 2.5% market share[2]. 0. http://marketingland.com/google-revenues-beat-expectations-with-21-3-billion-in-q4-and-75-billion-in-2015-162152 http://marketingland.com/google-revenues-beat-expectations-w... 1. https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611 https://gist.github.com/chitchcock/1281611 2. http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/IaaS-market-piechart-2015-Structure.jpg http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/0...