3 ms·

It’s actually double lock-in, so 2x worse. You used to have to just be afraid of lock-in, which I don’t think is as big an issue as it sometimes seems. But wi

by Top19 9y ago

It’s actually double lock-in, so 2x worse. You used to have to just be afraid of lock-in, which I don’t think is as big an issue as it sometimes seems. But with Google, you’re not only locked in but might be LOCKED OUT when they kill your product.

chatmasta 9y ago
Don’t be ridiculous. Google killing a feed reader is a way different from Google killing a cloud service with paying customers and SLA agreements.
- un_montagnard 9y ago
  Like the QPX Express API?
  - chatmasta 9y ago
    Interesting point. However that’s not a google cloud product and never had an SLA (the QBX FAQ says “we do not guarantee support”). It’s also a unique case because of its reliance on third party data vendors. If google starts killing their cloud products, I will eat my socks. Just let me wash them first.
- nik736 9y ago
  ?? This happened before.
- non_sequitur 9y ago
  This is from their legal agreement: 7.1 Discontinuance of Services. Subject to Section 7.2, Google may discontinue any Services or any portion or feature for any reason at any time without liability to Customer. 7.2 Deprecation Policy. Google will announce if it intends to discontinue or make backwards incompatible changes to the Services specified at the URL in the next sentence. Google will use commercially reasonable efforts to continue to operate those Services versions and features identified at https://cloud.google.com/terms/deprecation https://cloud.google.com/terms/deprecation without these changes for at least one year after that announcement, unless (as Google determines in its reasonable good faith judgment) So technically they can do it, though their enterprise customers likely have stronger agreements that require at least X time (probably 1 year) notice
  - chatmasta 9y ago
    Of course they can do it. I’m sure similar language exists in AWS and Azure agreements. Look, I hate a lot of what Google stands for and where it’s going. But I find it very implausible they’ll kill any non-beta products that are part of google cloud platform. GCP is poised to take the place of AdWords as the google golden goose, helping them to diversify from their heavy reliance on advertising for revenue. They do not want to screw that up. I’m sure they are well aware of the uprising that would cause amongst developers, aka the core customers of GCP. It would be a stupid move in a highly competitive cloud market, effectively telegraphing the fact that you can not rely on GCP services to exist in perpetuity. Their competitors would likely respond by re-implementing the shut down product with a compatible API so they could literally steal disgruntled users from GCP. If you’re really concerned about this, the solution is pretty simple: don’t use GCP. If you want to use it, then only rely on the very core services that google clearly has strong incentives not to kill. Those would likely be VMs and any products that have an equivalent at another cloud vendor.
jacksmith21006 9y ago
Silly statement. Google is in the cloud business and this is very different than a free product they offer.
- kuschku 9y ago
  The Flights API they just killed? Custom searches, which many websites paid for, which they killed? Google has a habit of killing things, no matter if you pay for it and your business relies on it, or not.
  - jedmeyers 9y ago
    If I remember correctly, they were required to keep that API up for a specified amount of time after the acquisition and they have kept it longer than that.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      And that’s an excuse how? Many of their cloud APIs are also acquisitions. The entire Firebase product line, and the Fabric.io product line are acquisitions. Should we expect those to also disappear suddenly?
      - panopticon 9y ago
        I think the difference is that the QPX was the byproduct of an acquisition (ITA Software) while Firebase and Fabric.io were the desired targets in those respective acquisitions.
jedberg 9y ago
Usually when a large company relies heavily on a cloud provider, they have an additional contract that specifies, among other things, advanced warning of any pending shutdown, often measured in years, to give them enough time to adjust and also to appease their shareholders and auditors.
- eitally 9y ago
  And even without this, Google has a history of proactively notifying paying customers years in advance of termination of a commercial enterprise service. The Search Appliances are a perfect example -- EOL was announced a couple years ago but support has persisted for existing customers and only next spring will they finally be fully unsupported. Moreover, Google is actively offering migration plans & assistance to move GSA customers to the new Cloud Search service, or even to third party indexers like Elastic. I get the gist of the OP's complaint, but like you said, that behavior pattern is just not tenable in the kind of operating environment Google Cloud finds itself in these days. Disclaimer: I work for Google Cloud, but not on any of the aforementioned products.

by Top19 9y ago

chatmasta 9y ago

Don’t be ridiculous. Google killing a feed reader is a way different from Google killing a cloud service with paying customers and SLA agreements.

un_montagnard 9y ago
Like the QPX Express API?
- chatmasta 9y ago
  Interesting point. However that’s not a google cloud product and never had an SLA (the QBX FAQ says “we do not guarantee support”). It’s also a unique case because of its reliance on third party data vendors. If google starts killing their cloud products, I will eat my socks. Just let me wash them first.
nik736 9y ago
?? This happened before.
non_sequitur 9y ago
This is from their legal agreement: 7.1 Discontinuance of Services. Subject to Section 7.2, Google may discontinue any Services or any portion or feature for any reason at any time without liability to Customer. 7.2 Deprecation Policy. Google will announce if it intends to discontinue or make backwards incompatible changes to the Services specified at the URL in the next sentence. Google will use commercially reasonable efforts to continue to operate those Services versions and features identified at https://cloud.google.com/terms/deprecation https://cloud.google.com/terms/deprecation without these changes for at least one year after that announcement, unless (as Google determines in its reasonable good faith judgment) So technically they can do it, though their enterprise customers likely have stronger agreements that require at least X time (probably 1 year) notice
- chatmasta 9y ago
  Of course they can do it. I’m sure similar language exists in AWS and Azure agreements. Look, I hate a lot of what Google stands for and where it’s going. But I find it very implausible they’ll kill any non-beta products that are part of google cloud platform. GCP is poised to take the place of AdWords as the google golden goose, helping them to diversify from their heavy reliance on advertising for revenue. They do not want to screw that up. I’m sure they are well aware of the uprising that would cause amongst developers, aka the core customers of GCP. It would be a stupid move in a highly competitive cloud market, effectively telegraphing the fact that you can not rely on GCP services to exist in perpetuity. Their competitors would likely respond by re-implementing the shut down product with a compatible API so they could literally steal disgruntled users from GCP. If you’re really concerned about this, the solution is pretty simple: don’t use GCP. If you want to use it, then only rely on the very core services that google clearly has strong incentives not to kill. Those would likely be VMs and any products that have an equivalent at another cloud vendor.

jacksmith21006 9y ago

Silly statement. Google is in the cloud business and this is very different than a free product they offer.

kuschku 9y ago
The Flights API they just killed? Custom searches, which many websites paid for, which they killed? Google has a habit of killing things, no matter if you pay for it and your business relies on it, or not.
- jedmeyers 9y ago
  If I remember correctly, they were required to keep that API up for a specified amount of time after the acquisition and they have kept it longer than that.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    And that’s an excuse how? Many of their cloud APIs are also acquisitions. The entire Firebase product line, and the Fabric.io product line are acquisitions. Should we expect those to also disappear suddenly?
    - panopticon 9y ago
      I think the difference is that the QPX was the byproduct of an acquisition (ITA Software) while Firebase and Fabric.io were the desired targets in those respective acquisitions.

jedberg 9y ago

Usually when a large company relies heavily on a cloud provider, they have an additional contract that specifies, among other things, advanced warning of any pending shutdown, often measured in years, to give them enough time to adjust and also to appease their shareholders and auditors.

eitally 9y ago
And even without this, Google has a history of proactively notifying paying customers years in advance of termination of a commercial enterprise service. The Search Appliances are a perfect example -- EOL was announced a couple years ago but support has persisted for existing customers and only next spring will they finally be fully unsupported. Moreover, Google is actively offering migration plans & assistance to move GSA customers to the new Cloud Search service, or even to third party indexers like Elastic. I get the gist of the OP's complaint, but like you said, that behavior pattern is just not tenable in the kind of operating environment Google Cloud finds itself in these days. Disclaimer: I work for Google Cloud, but not on any of the aforementioned products.