4 ms·

Gonna be totally honest: From the headline and Google’s previous behavior, my first thought was “Huh, I didn’t expect them to shut GCP down already...” (To be

Gonna be totally honest: From the headline and Google’s previous behavior, my first thought was “Huh, I didn’t expect them to shut GCP down already...” (To be clear, they are not shutting down GCP, this is just a leadership transition)

Mononokay 8y ago
My first reaction was "What a weird way to announce they're shutting dow...oh!"
fosco 8y ago
Funny, I had the same thought before reading. one day xkcd [0] will be considered a profit, that day is coming. [0] https://xkcd.com/1361/ https://xkcd.com/1361/
sctb 8y ago
We've added a “leadership” to the title to help clarify.
yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
Might we say that it was an incredible journey? ;)
CameronBanga 8y ago
I think one of the big issues that Google is facing with GCP is exactly the perception they have in the market with respect to product shutdowns. I could never see myself making the decision to go with Google over Amazon or Azure, simply because I don't feel confident that the product won't be shutdown with minimal warning at any given time.
- arbie 8y ago
  Have you considered a cloud abstraction that let's you change providers with less effort?
  - whorleater 8y ago
    Have you been using the same cloud abstraction tools I have? Terraform and Kubernetes all require more effort in dealing with cloud providers, not less.
    - gaius 8y ago
      Yes the myth of Terraform is that it abstracts sufficiently to be cross platform. You can use it on multiple platforms but that’s all.
  - spookthesunset 8y ago
    This is like those database abstractions that get made under the premise that someday at some point you'll switch DB's. But yet, 10 years later you are still chugging along on the same database you started with. You would have been far better off to just completely "move in" with the DB you decided to use in the first place and leverage all it has to offer. The problem with these kinds of abstractions is in order to avoid "vendor lock in" they are forced into a "lowest common denominator" deal where you don't get to leverage any vendor-specific awesomeness. For example, in DB land you would avoid certain kinds of database fields (Postgres's structured datatypes like JSON, for example). Instead of leveraging the DB to do certain kinds of JSON queries you now have to write the infrastructure your self "just in case we switch DB's". The irony is, in my experience to avoid the dreaded vendor lock in "problem", teams and organizations wind up locking themselves into their own homebrew nightmare that does nothing but recreate (often poorly) what they could have gotten by allowing themselves to get locked in to a third party. It goes without saying that in almost all cases, this homebrew nightmare has zero to do with the actual value generating functions of the business. Storing and querying on structured JSON in a database has nothing to do with the core values of 99.999% of all organizations--these things should be locked into third parties. My point is, most teams should embrace all their cloud providers can offer. Settling for the lowest common denominator shared between cloud providers leaves money on the table and runs a very high risk of what is, in my experience, a worse form of vendor lock in--getting locked into your own stinking pile of rubble. I could go on and on about the "vendor lock in" boogyman--it is one of the biggest, most annoying anti-patterns I see. It creates huge political and technical hurdles as the business grows. I believe it stems from a poor understanding of actual business risks, not understanding the true lifetime costs of inhouse engineering projects, resume-driven design, and a very healthy dose of premature optimization. (also toss in some Stallmanesque mistrust of proprietary systems for good measure)
- wavegeek 8y ago
  It is strange that smart people like this are shooting themselves in the foot in this way. Yes you can save money by killing a product, but I would argue the second order effects are more important. People lose the faith to bet on your products. Having had to scramble - twice - when google cut products under me, I would never make a big bet based on an assumption that they will keep faith after I commit to their products. Maybe they should read H Edwards Deming e.g. "maintain consistency of purpose".
matt4077 8y ago
I bet Google would gladly undo the Reader decision now, and even pay whatever they saved in costs over the last ten years, if only it would spare them from the endless repetition of this cliché. FWIW I'm pretty sure Google projects have at least as good a life expectancy as startups do.
- Arcsech 8y ago
  Even if they hadn't shut down Reader, there's still Hangouts (v1), Talk, Chat, Messenger, Wave, Buzz, Plus, Hangouts (v2), Orkut, Helpouts, Inbox, Knol, Video, Nexus Q, Spaces... The list just goes on and on and on.
  - ricktdotorg 8y ago
    Hangouts v2 was renamed to Meet. it has not been cancelled.

Mononokay 8y ago

My first reaction was "What a weird way to announce they're shutting dow...oh!"

fosco 8y ago

Funny, I had the same thought before reading. one day xkcd [0] will be considered a profit, that day is coming. [0] https://xkcd.com/1361/ https://xkcd.com/1361/

sctb 8y ago

We've added a “leadership” to the title to help clarify.

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago

Might we say that it was an incredible journey? ;)

CameronBanga 8y ago

I think one of the big issues that Google is facing with GCP is exactly the perception they have in the market with respect to product shutdowns. I could never see myself making the decision to go with Google over Amazon or Azure, simply because I don't feel confident that the product won't be shutdown with minimal warning at any given time.

arbie 8y ago
Have you considered a cloud abstraction that let's you change providers with less effort?
- whorleater 8y ago
  Have you been using the same cloud abstraction tools I have? Terraform and Kubernetes all require more effort in dealing with cloud providers, not less.
  - gaius 8y ago
    Yes the myth of Terraform is that it abstracts sufficiently to be cross platform. You can use it on multiple platforms but that’s all.
- spookthesunset 8y ago
  This is like those database abstractions that get made under the premise that someday at some point you'll switch DB's. But yet, 10 years later you are still chugging along on the same database you started with. You would have been far better off to just completely "move in" with the DB you decided to use in the first place and leverage all it has to offer. The problem with these kinds of abstractions is in order to avoid "vendor lock in" they are forced into a "lowest common denominator" deal where you don't get to leverage any vendor-specific awesomeness. For example, in DB land you would avoid certain kinds of database fields (Postgres's structured datatypes like JSON, for example). Instead of leveraging the DB to do certain kinds of JSON queries you now have to write the infrastructure your self "just in case we switch DB's". The irony is, in my experience to avoid the dreaded vendor lock in "problem", teams and organizations wind up locking themselves into their own homebrew nightmare that does nothing but recreate (often poorly) what they could have gotten by allowing themselves to get locked in to a third party. It goes without saying that in almost all cases, this homebrew nightmare has zero to do with the actual value generating functions of the business. Storing and querying on structured JSON in a database has nothing to do with the core values of 99.999% of all organizations--these things should be locked into third parties. My point is, most teams should embrace all their cloud providers can offer. Settling for the lowest common denominator shared between cloud providers leaves money on the table and runs a very high risk of what is, in my experience, a worse form of vendor lock in--getting locked into your own stinking pile of rubble. I could go on and on about the "vendor lock in" boogyman--it is one of the biggest, most annoying anti-patterns I see. It creates huge political and technical hurdles as the business grows. I believe it stems from a poor understanding of actual business risks, not understanding the true lifetime costs of inhouse engineering projects, resume-driven design, and a very healthy dose of premature optimization. (also toss in some Stallmanesque mistrust of proprietary systems for good measure)
wavegeek 8y ago
It is strange that smart people like this are shooting themselves in the foot in this way. Yes you can save money by killing a product, but I would argue the second order effects are more important. People lose the faith to bet on your products. Having had to scramble - twice - when google cut products under me, I would never make a big bet based on an assumption that they will keep faith after I commit to their products. Maybe they should read H Edwards Deming e.g. "maintain consistency of purpose".

matt4077 8y ago

I bet Google would gladly undo the Reader decision now, and even pay whatever they saved in costs over the last ten years, if only it would spare them from the endless repetition of this cliché. FWIW I'm pretty sure Google projects have at least as good a life expectancy as startups do.

Arcsech 8y ago
Even if they hadn't shut down Reader, there's still Hangouts (v1), Talk, Chat, Messenger, Wave, Buzz, Plus, Hangouts (v2), Orkut, Helpouts, Inbox, Knol, Video, Nexus Q, Spaces... The list just goes on and on and on.
- ricktdotorg 8y ago
  Hangouts v2 was renamed to Meet. it has not been cancelled.