4 ms·

> If you are looking for a solution for mobile analytics I'm not at all, that example was pulled at random as an example. > Its hard for a single solution to

> If you are looking for a solution for mobile analytics I'm not at all, that example was pulled at random as an example. > Its hard for a single solution to serve 100% of customer needs. That why they suggest tools. It would be hard to describe just how custom of a solution my company would need. My company certainly likes to do things in a unique way. However there is a huge grey area between "here is a specific product that doesn't quite fit your needs" and "here are the blocks you need to build a custom solution on your own". That grey area is filled with money. > I would love to know if there are better alternatives for services like ... Don't underestimate the ability of large enterprise to roll their own. It isn't like Google is the only company that can build a message queue or a load balancer. Nor are they the only game in town selling them. This is a time to remember: The customer is always right. You and I may think that "Google is the best" but my manager wants what my manager wants. We may select a lesser solution simply because the support is significantly better. And that support should be vertically integrated. If we have support for pub sub, support for big query but not support for the integration between them ... that is a drawback. > Speaking about cost, its all flat rate Not really. For example data flow is based on the size of machine you are running (plus some extra percentage for the service), pub sub is based on number of events, big query is based on query time + egress, etc. I probably still have the spreadsheet I used to try to get a handle on costs kicking around somewhere. "Flat rate" does not describe the monstrosity that is that spreadsheet. I totally understand that some people don't understand the enterprise mentality. I'm not trying to defend it - maybe just give a small view into it. Now that I live in it, I may not agree with it, but I understand it. Google doesn't.

solipsism 10y ago
Now that I live in it, I may not agree with it, but I understand it. Google doesn't. I love the hubris of statements like this. Google makes decisions based on many factors, many of which you have no idea about. The idea that they're leaving an incredible amount of money on the table because they just lack all your enterprise experience is ludicrous.
- reggieband 10y ago
  > because they just lack all your enterprise experience I can only speak to the architectural projects I have been involved with and to the general attitude around the office. I could rephrase my last statement as: "The general impression from the technical managers at my workplace is that Google does not demonstrate understanding of the factors that influence the types of large enterprise purchases we routinely make". I might suggest you are mistaking my description of the inner-workings of my workplace with a value judgement, or with my own technical assessment of Google's technology. What you need to understand is that it is people like me pitching Google Cloud and witnessing it getting shot down. I'm trying to explain to you why.
  - panzagl 10y ago
    Sorry, but I love how someone with the username 'solipsism' is basically accusing you of being too ego-centric.
  - solipsism 10y ago
    What you need to understand is that it is people like me pitching Google Cloud and witnessing it getting shot down And you feel you have sufficient understanding of all the tradeoffs involved in Google choosing to implement what you want them to implement in the way you want them to implement it? You know enough about their overall Cloud strategy, their future development plans, their staffing situation, etc? Because it sounds like you're saying, "I have some money I'm willing to pay. Google won't take it, Google just doesn't understand!" There are lots of jobs you could offer me that I would turn down for a variety of reasons.
obulpathi 10y ago
> I'm not at all, that example was pulled at random as an example. Then give me an example of what you are looking for and I will give you a solution > My company certainly likes to do things in a unique way. And every company has a unique way of doing things. That is why they provided all the tools you want and let you combine them to fit your custom needs. Instead, if they were to provide turnkey solutions, you would not use them because you have unique needs. > It isn't like Google is the only company that can build a message queue or a load balancer. Nor are they the only game in town selling them. If there are any better solutions, please let me know. Support is first class on Google Cloud. That is one of the reasons why Spotify choose Google Cloud over AWS. > "Flat rate" does not describe the monstrosity that is that spreadsheet. Google Cloud pricing structure is far easier to work with, as you don't need reservations/upfront payments and at the same time leaves room for scaling up and down elastically. The amount you pay is simply based on usage. For Pub/Sub its the number of messages, for BigQuery its the amount of data that is queried. I would love to see a simpler pricing structure. Would you care to share the details if you know of any?
- clebio 10y ago
  A simpler pricing structure would be an Enterprise flat rate. Charge five to ten times what any possible scaling might cause. There are corporations that will pay. That's the point about "mind-bending".
  - eip 10y ago
    AWS and Google already charge five to ten times as much as dedicated hosting for cpu, storage, and bandwidth.

solipsism 10y ago

Now that I live in it, I may not agree with it, but I understand it. Google doesn't. I love the hubris of statements like this. Google makes decisions based on many factors, many of which you have no idea about. The idea that they're leaving an incredible amount of money on the table because they just lack all your enterprise experience is ludicrous.

reggieband 10y ago
> because they just lack all your enterprise experience I can only speak to the architectural projects I have been involved with and to the general attitude around the office. I could rephrase my last statement as: "The general impression from the technical managers at my workplace is that Google does not demonstrate understanding of the factors that influence the types of large enterprise purchases we routinely make". I might suggest you are mistaking my description of the inner-workings of my workplace with a value judgement, or with my own technical assessment of Google's technology. What you need to understand is that it is people like me pitching Google Cloud and witnessing it getting shot down. I'm trying to explain to you why.
- panzagl 10y ago
  Sorry, but I love how someone with the username 'solipsism' is basically accusing you of being too ego-centric.
- solipsism 10y ago
  What you need to understand is that it is people like me pitching Google Cloud and witnessing it getting shot down And you feel you have sufficient understanding of all the tradeoffs involved in Google choosing to implement what you want them to implement in the way you want them to implement it? You know enough about their overall Cloud strategy, their future development plans, their staffing situation, etc? Because it sounds like you're saying, "I have some money I'm willing to pay. Google won't take it, Google just doesn't understand!" There are lots of jobs you could offer me that I would turn down for a variety of reasons.

obulpathi 10y ago

> I'm not at all, that example was pulled at random as an example. Then give me an example of what you are looking for and I will give you a solution > My company certainly likes to do things in a unique way. And every company has a unique way of doing things. That is why they provided all the tools you want and let you combine them to fit your custom needs. Instead, if they were to provide turnkey solutions, you would not use them because you have unique needs. > It isn't like Google is the only company that can build a message queue or a load balancer. Nor are they the only game in town selling them. If there are any better solutions, please let me know. Support is first class on Google Cloud. That is one of the reasons why Spotify choose Google Cloud over AWS. > "Flat rate" does not describe the monstrosity that is that spreadsheet. Google Cloud pricing structure is far easier to work with, as you don't need reservations/upfront payments and at the same time leaves room for scaling up and down elastically. The amount you pay is simply based on usage. For Pub/Sub its the number of messages, for BigQuery its the amount of data that is queried. I would love to see a simpler pricing structure. Would you care to share the details if you know of any?

clebio 10y ago
A simpler pricing structure would be an Enterprise flat rate. Charge five to ten times what any possible scaling might cause. There are corporations that will pay. That's the point about "mind-bending".
- eip 10y ago
  AWS and Google already charge five to ten times as much as dedicated hosting for cpu, storage, and bandwidth.