6 ms·

This is serving a large, and legitimate growing need in the market too. Not everyone can hire "Super DevOps Puppet, Ansible, Master" employees. AWS is going fo

by mbesto 10y ago

This is serving a large, and legitimate growing need in the market too. Not everyone can hire "Super DevOps Puppet, Ansible, Master" employees. AWS is going for pure volume. MSFT is going for customer service and "enterprise ready" (HIPAA, gov't, etc) GCP is a bit in no-man's land. Diane Greene appears to be heading it towards Azure, but it's very un-Google-like. (Google likes high margin businesses that can be support by technology solutions, not people)

user5994461 10y ago
Google Cloud is half the price, double the performances, and it has many major products/capabilities that are light years ahead and have zero equivalents in the other clouds. They're the unexpected player and they suck at marketing though :D
- _benedict 10y ago
  Completely true, and deliciously ironic
  - hyperpallium 10y ago
    There's more to marketing than advertising, but yeah.
- Jdam 10y ago
  And still, they cannot compete with AWS in terms of "completeness of vision" how Gartner puts it. And that is totally justified.
  - obulpathi 10y ago
    I worked with both Google Cloud and AWS. Having read Gartners Magic Quadrants on Cloud, I really question Gartners competency on understanding what Cloud really means. There is no question that Google Cloud is years ahead of AWS (ease of use, scalability, performance, vertical integration, networks, security ... ), but Gartner reports that AWS is leader. Bottomline: Don't trust what others say. Try out various cloud providers and decide for yourself, before diving head down and suffering with pain everyday.
    - Jdam 10y ago
      I am AWS heavy and used Google Cloud a bit. There are tons of AWS services where Google just does not provide an equivalent. Also, AWS release pace is incredible. Quality of Google Cloud is very decent though.
      - obulpathi 10y ago
        Google Cloud and AWS are pretty much equivalent in terms of feature parity: https://cloud.google.com/free-trial/docs/map-aws-google-cloud-platform https://cloud.google.com/free-trial/docs/map-aws-google-clou.... There are few (10% os services maybe?) that are not available on other platform. Also, the way AWS counts service is by nuts and bolts (AWS believes in providing fundamental components, not higher level frameworks) vs Google Cloud counts things by Cars / Trains / Submarines levels. That why people tend to think that Google Cloud provides fewer services. (As an example, imagine how many number of AWS components are needed to perform the function of App Engine. May be 10?)
    - jimbokun 10y ago
      As someone who works with technology every day, i never have any idea what Gartner is trying to say. I look at their magic quadrants or whatever, and have no idea how it is supposed to make decisions about technologies or their vendors.
    - parasubvert 10y ago
      That MQ is led by Lydia Leong who is probably the most respected analyst in cloud (dating back to 2008!)... they're pretty transparent in the actual paid report. AWS Lambda has a major head start and is a big reason for its head of vision above Google. Don't get me wrong, Google has a great quality cloud, but the pace and breadth of Amazon's offering is breathtaking. One of the big controversies was IBM Softlayer being reduced to niche status, which led to howling of a volume never heard out of New York... which delayed the report months... but Gartner stuck to their guns. It's a pretty fair report.
    - privateprofile 10y ago
      >> Having read Gartners Magic Quadrants on Cloud, I really question Gartners competency on understanding I think you can replace "Cloud" with whatever technology Gartner or most analysts write about. These firms are little more than uninformed hype producers that fuel the enterprise software spend cycle through marketing (webinars, "research", tap-my-back-events and 3k€ "reports") that tell CIOs/CTOs what they should already know, by definition of their function: what technologies to consider for their business problems, why and how. On the other hand, they provide a nice scapegoat when someone needs to offload responsibility, a bit like the "no one ever got fired for buying recommended by Gartner". PS: wish I could find Zed Shaw's video on "calling bullshit" (or related), as it includes a nice anecdote on dealing with industry analysts.
- supernovae 10y ago
  This still doesn't change the fact Google is a terrible company to do business with unless you have exponential spend year over year. The comment above about low touch is spot on.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    They are not any worse than AWS to do business with. They just have a "bad" reputation.
    - knappe 10y ago
      An earned, bad reputation.
      - noir_lord 10y ago
        A very, very well earned bad reputation, so much so that I pulled us off Google Apps at work and no longer recommend them to anyone. Having dealt with their paid offerings.
        meddlepal 10y ago
        Why and when? Also was it a GCP issue or a general Google issue?
- tornadoboy55 10y ago
  Story of Google. See Play Music.
- eknkc 10y ago
  We've been on Google Cloud for a year and recently moved everything to AWS. On paper, Google Cloud looks great. Pricing is definitely better but raw VM performance is not. You get what you pay for. Stability is not anywhere near AWS. Had multi region load balancer outages. VMs going half the performance suddenly, out of nowhere. Support is non existent or much more expensive than AWS. We were happy with it for a while but I'd not suggest it for anything critical anymore.
  - Fiahil 10y ago
    It pretty much match my experience with GCP. Support is almost non-existent (like every other Google service).
    - jpatokal 10y ago
      Support is actually quite existent (/me waves), including for free tier customers. However, in line with our esteemed competitors, you do need to sign up to a paid plan if you need an SLA on responses: https://cloud.google.com/support/ https://cloud.google.com/support/ If you have a specific example of GCP support not working well for you, please drop me a line at jani at google dot com and I'll be happy to look into it.
      - human_error 10y ago
        > If you have a specific example of GCP support not working well for you, please drop me a line at jani at google dot com and I'll be happy to look into it. Unfortunately you just described why people won't prefer GCP. With your competitor, AWS, people actually get a support but with GCP, they don't get anyone unless they complain on reddit, hacker news, twitter etc. and hoping that one of GCP employees may come across to their issue and they'd get some support. No sane company would invest into this.
- sfifs 10y ago
  unfortunately, if you run a business, you really want someone to answer your questions on phone/email whenever required. If you are not a technology company, the value of your very few good tech people's time tends to outweigh technology expenses and you can't attract a lot of top notch ops people anyway because you can't promise them an exciting careers. Remember that bulk of the fortune 500 is not tech. So you want to pay that support expense and get your people all the help they need. Whoever has a good track record of providing that help gets the business.
- jimbokun 10y ago
  In general, I would say marketing is the thing Google does the best, which is why I find it surprising they are unable to market these products. Their entire business proposition revolves around getting products and services in front of exactly the people looking to spend money on those things. They were able to market Chrome super effectively, taking a lot of share from IE. Chromebooks and their flagship phones get lots of attention. So why can't they get the message of GCP in front of the most likely customers?
  - mdorazio 10y ago
    I think there's a consumer vs. enterprise gap there. Chrome, Android, Chromebook, Docs/Drive (originally), etc. are all consumer products and gained traction in that space. Marketing to enterprises for something like GCP is quite a bit different and requires a different strategy that Google just hasn't really mastered yet.
lobster_johnson 10y ago
GCP's technology is way beyond everyone else's, but they lack a good story. I keep recommending GCP to people, and they wrinkle their noses skeptically. Part of it is Google's reputation for bad support and for killing products; I have to tell them that while that rep is definitely extremely well deserved, GCP operates completely differently. Another part of it is not knowing what GCP is -- it's flying surprisingly low under many people's radar. Some people think it's just App Engine, which I get the impression that a lot of people got burnt by in the early days (apparently it's great now; never used it). I think Google has a chance, but they need to work on their marketing. I don't know how they would fix the reputation problem, though, other than bide their time and hope that time heals all wounds.
- meddlepal 10y ago
  I too love GCP and have used it a bunch and really recommend it but I get the same reactions. Not sure what Google can do at this point.
- erichocean 10y ago
  I used GCP successfully on a big project for Nike. Went to use it again for another client, and mid-development, they froze the account with no way to recover it. Well, my Nike job was for a live event. Had it gotten shutdown the same way, I would have been fucked. Holy shit even the thought of that happening scares the shit out of me—this was a multi-million dollars live event! That killed GCP for me permanently. Same CRAP Google support they always have, but now with the ability to do serious damage to my reputation. Never. Again.
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    What was the reason they froze the account?
    - erichocean 10y ago
      They didn't give one. Typical Google. Extremely frustrating to say the least.

by mbesto 10y ago

user5994461 10y ago

Google Cloud is half the price, double the performances, and it has many major products/capabilities that are light years ahead and have zero equivalents in the other clouds. They're the unexpected player and they suck at marketing though :D

_benedict 10y ago
Completely true, and deliciously ironic
- hyperpallium 10y ago
  There's more to marketing than advertising, but yeah.
Jdam 10y ago
And still, they cannot compete with AWS in terms of "completeness of vision" how Gartner puts it. And that is totally justified.
- obulpathi 10y ago
  I worked with both Google Cloud and AWS. Having read Gartners Magic Quadrants on Cloud, I really question Gartners competency on understanding what Cloud really means. There is no question that Google Cloud is years ahead of AWS (ease of use, scalability, performance, vertical integration, networks, security ... ), but Gartner reports that AWS is leader. Bottomline: Don't trust what others say. Try out various cloud providers and decide for yourself, before diving head down and suffering with pain everyday.
  - Jdam 10y ago
    I am AWS heavy and used Google Cloud a bit. There are tons of AWS services where Google just does not provide an equivalent. Also, AWS release pace is incredible. Quality of Google Cloud is very decent though.
    - obulpathi 10y ago
      Google Cloud and AWS are pretty much equivalent in terms of feature parity: https://cloud.google.com/free-trial/docs/map-aws-google-cloud-platform https://cloud.google.com/free-trial/docs/map-aws-google-clou.... There are few (10% os services maybe?) that are not available on other platform. Also, the way AWS counts service is by nuts and bolts (AWS believes in providing fundamental components, not higher level frameworks) vs Google Cloud counts things by Cars / Trains / Submarines levels. That why people tend to think that Google Cloud provides fewer services. (As an example, imagine how many number of AWS components are needed to perform the function of App Engine. May be 10?)
  - jimbokun 10y ago
    As someone who works with technology every day, i never have any idea what Gartner is trying to say. I look at their magic quadrants or whatever, and have no idea how it is supposed to make decisions about technologies or their vendors.
  - parasubvert 10y ago
    That MQ is led by Lydia Leong who is probably the most respected analyst in cloud (dating back to 2008!)... they're pretty transparent in the actual paid report. AWS Lambda has a major head start and is a big reason for its head of vision above Google. Don't get me wrong, Google has a great quality cloud, but the pace and breadth of Amazon's offering is breathtaking. One of the big controversies was IBM Softlayer being reduced to niche status, which led to howling of a volume never heard out of New York... which delayed the report months... but Gartner stuck to their guns. It's a pretty fair report.
  - privateprofile 10y ago
    >> Having read Gartners Magic Quadrants on Cloud, I really question Gartners competency on understanding I think you can replace "Cloud" with whatever technology Gartner or most analysts write about. These firms are little more than uninformed hype producers that fuel the enterprise software spend cycle through marketing (webinars, "research", tap-my-back-events and 3k€ "reports") that tell CIOs/CTOs what they should already know, by definition of their function: what technologies to consider for their business problems, why and how. On the other hand, they provide a nice scapegoat when someone needs to offload responsibility, a bit like the "no one ever got fired for buying recommended by Gartner". PS: wish I could find Zed Shaw's video on "calling bullshit" (or related), as it includes a nice anecdote on dealing with industry analysts.
supernovae 10y ago
This still doesn't change the fact Google is a terrible company to do business with unless you have exponential spend year over year. The comment above about low touch is spot on.
- user5994461 10y ago
  They are not any worse than AWS to do business with. They just have a "bad" reputation.
  - knappe 10y ago
    An earned, bad reputation.
    - noir_lord 10y ago
      A very, very well earned bad reputation, so much so that I pulled us off Google Apps at work and no longer recommend them to anyone. Having dealt with their paid offerings.
      - meddlepal 10y ago
        Why and when? Also was it a GCP issue or a general Google issue?
tornadoboy55 10y ago
Story of Google. See Play Music.
eknkc 10y ago
We've been on Google Cloud for a year and recently moved everything to AWS. On paper, Google Cloud looks great. Pricing is definitely better but raw VM performance is not. You get what you pay for. Stability is not anywhere near AWS. Had multi region load balancer outages. VMs going half the performance suddenly, out of nowhere. Support is non existent or much more expensive than AWS. We were happy with it for a while but I'd not suggest it for anything critical anymore.
- Fiahil 10y ago
  It pretty much match my experience with GCP. Support is almost non-existent (like every other Google service).
  - jpatokal 10y ago
    Support is actually quite existent (/me waves), including for free tier customers. However, in line with our esteemed competitors, you do need to sign up to a paid plan if you need an SLA on responses: https://cloud.google.com/support/ https://cloud.google.com/support/ If you have a specific example of GCP support not working well for you, please drop me a line at jani at google dot com and I'll be happy to look into it.
    - human_error 10y ago
      > If you have a specific example of GCP support not working well for you, please drop me a line at jani at google dot com and I'll be happy to look into it. Unfortunately you just described why people won't prefer GCP. With your competitor, AWS, people actually get a support but with GCP, they don't get anyone unless they complain on reddit, hacker news, twitter etc. and hoping that one of GCP employees may come across to their issue and they'd get some support. No sane company would invest into this.
sfifs 10y ago
unfortunately, if you run a business, you really want someone to answer your questions on phone/email whenever required. If you are not a technology company, the value of your very few good tech people's time tends to outweigh technology expenses and you can't attract a lot of top notch ops people anyway because you can't promise them an exciting careers. Remember that bulk of the fortune 500 is not tech. So you want to pay that support expense and get your people all the help they need. Whoever has a good track record of providing that help gets the business.
jimbokun 10y ago
In general, I would say marketing is the thing Google does the best, which is why I find it surprising they are unable to market these products. Their entire business proposition revolves around getting products and services in front of exactly the people looking to spend money on those things. They were able to market Chrome super effectively, taking a lot of share from IE. Chromebooks and their flagship phones get lots of attention. So why can't they get the message of GCP in front of the most likely customers?
- mdorazio 10y ago
  I think there's a consumer vs. enterprise gap there. Chrome, Android, Chromebook, Docs/Drive (originally), etc. are all consumer products and gained traction in that space. Marketing to enterprises for something like GCP is quite a bit different and requires a different strategy that Google just hasn't really mastered yet.

lobster_johnson 10y ago

GCP's technology is way beyond everyone else's, but they lack a good story. I keep recommending GCP to people, and they wrinkle their noses skeptically. Part of it is Google's reputation for bad support and for killing products; I have to tell them that while that rep is definitely extremely well deserved, GCP operates completely differently. Another part of it is not knowing what GCP is -- it's flying surprisingly low under many people's radar. Some people think it's just App Engine, which I get the impression that a lot of people got burnt by in the early days (apparently it's great now; never used it). I think Google has a chance, but they need to work on their marketing. I don't know how they would fix the reputation problem, though, other than bide their time and hope that time heals all wounds.

meddlepal 10y ago
I too love GCP and have used it a bunch and really recommend it but I get the same reactions. Not sure what Google can do at this point.
erichocean 10y ago
I used GCP successfully on a big project for Nike. Went to use it again for another client, and mid-development, they froze the account with no way to recover it. Well, my Nike job was for a live event. Had it gotten shutdown the same way, I would have been fucked. Holy shit even the thought of that happening scares the shit out of me—this was a multi-million dollars live event! That killed GCP for me permanently. Same CRAP Google support they always have, but now with the ability to do serious damage to my reputation. Never. Again.
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  What was the reason they froze the account?
  - erichocean 10y ago
    They didn't give one. Typical Google. Extremely frustrating to say the least.