3 ms·

definitely interesting that google is taking a friendly approach to partners while AWS is simply forking their code and selling it themselves. It'll be interest

definitely interesting that google is taking a friendly approach to partners while AWS is simply forking their code and selling it themselves. It'll be interesting to see which strategy pays off. Still a decent gap between # of AWS and GCP customers, but this could help them catch up. also shameless plug (about as shameless as it gets), but my company is offering free 90 day database migrations to Google Cloud for customers actively looking to move their ops to GCP. https://www.striim.com/google-cloud-database-migration-service/ https://www.striim.com/google-cloud-database-migration-servi...

tyingq 8y ago
Somewhat bold because it seems now harder for Google to reverse their stance than for AWS to reverse theirs.
- mrep 8y ago
  But it now gives Google cloud integrated services that will always have the newest features whereas the other cloud providers will have to pay to maintain their in house solutions themselves due to the recent changes in many popular open source license's. That leapfrogs AWS and azure in feature parity on those services while also funding said services further because they get a cut. Brilliant move IMO and I think it'll be a boom for improving open source software and increasing competition between the clouds.
  - tyingq 8y ago
    Sure, I wasn't saying it was a bad idea, just a bold one. Hard to pull back with the strong statements in the post..."equal collaborators, and not simply a resource to be mined"
maldeh 8y ago
As I see it, we have these open-source / core products, and the companies maintaining them are looking to provide certain value-added features (particularly critical to the enterprise crowd) in exchange for some vendor lock-in. - Amazon's tactics are to either offer a proprietary alternative to those enterprise features (Elasticache, DocumentDB), or to vend a competing open-source alternative with the aforementioned features (ElasticSearch, Corretto) - Google's approach looks to be partnering with the maintainer to offer a shared walled garden (so while you're still locked-in, you can easily migrate between blessed partners). I'm not yet convinced GCP's tactic is overall good for opensource as a whole, since they are setting themselves up as de facto benevolent gatekeepers; although admittedly they will allow these projects to thrive under their current stewardship in the medium term. Edit: I'm also interested in seeing what happens here when there are multiple competing vendors who have equivalent claims to stewardship of the underlying project - ex:- Hortonworks and Cloudera pre-merger, or Cloudera vs. MapR. Also, how vendors with vast proprietary ecosystems work out in this "native fully managed" setting, ex:- Databricks which has managed to get on by on the Azure and AWS marketplaces.

tyingq 8y ago

Somewhat bold because it seems now harder for Google to reverse their stance than for AWS to reverse theirs.

mrep 8y ago
But it now gives Google cloud integrated services that will always have the newest features whereas the other cloud providers will have to pay to maintain their in house solutions themselves due to the recent changes in many popular open source license's. That leapfrogs AWS and azure in feature parity on those services while also funding said services further because they get a cut. Brilliant move IMO and I think it'll be a boom for improving open source software and increasing competition between the clouds.
- tyingq 8y ago
  Sure, I wasn't saying it was a bad idea, just a bold one. Hard to pull back with the strong statements in the post..."equal collaborators, and not simply a resource to be mined"

maldeh 8y ago

As I see it, we have these open-source / core products, and the companies maintaining them are looking to provide certain value-added features (particularly critical to the enterprise crowd) in exchange for some vendor lock-in. - Amazon's tactics are to either offer a proprietary alternative to those enterprise features (Elasticache, DocumentDB), or to vend a competing open-source alternative with the aforementioned features (ElasticSearch, Corretto) - Google's approach looks to be partnering with the maintainer to offer a shared walled garden (so while you're still locked-in, you can easily migrate between blessed partners). I'm not yet convinced GCP's tactic is overall good for opensource as a whole, since they are setting themselves up as de facto benevolent gatekeepers; although admittedly they will allow these projects to thrive under their current stewardship in the medium term. Edit: I'm also interested in seeing what happens here when there are multiple competing vendors who have equivalent claims to stewardship of the underlying project - ex:- Hortonworks and Cloudera pre-merger, or Cloudera vs. MapR. Also, how vendors with vast proprietary ecosystems work out in this "native fully managed" setting, ex:- Databricks which has managed to get on by on the Azure and AWS marketplaces.