5 ms·

30x growth only? My wild gutted is that at least 1 billion Gmail App installations must have been updated to integrated Google Meet versions. So I expected much

30x growth only? My wild gutted is that at least 1 billion Gmail App installations must have been updated to integrated Google Meet versions. So I expected much higher jump. Just yesterday, we were asking people in our school WhatsApp Group to install Teams app. As for Google Meet, just update!!!

tpmx 6y ago
> 30x growth only srsly?
- m3kw9 6y ago
  To be fair 1 to 30 is 30x growth. It really depend on the original size.
  - jeffbee 6y ago
    It says they ended up at 100 million daily active users. The fact that they could deploy that capacity in 60 days should terrify their competitors.
    - stingraycharles 6y ago
      I don’t think so, as their competitors already know Google is Google and has virtually unlimited resources. As far as I understand from the article it was mostly a matter of “hey can we have extra capacity”, which shouldn’t surprise any competitors.
    - jsnell 6y ago
      The competitors scaled by similar factors from similar baselines. Here’s a comment I wrote in April, collecting the then-current info from the three big ones: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23029151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23029151
    - oblio 6y ago
      Google Search had 1.2 billion users back in 2013, now it probably has 3 billion. Youtube has 2 billion users. Gmail has 1.5 billion users. Android/Play Services has 2.5 billion users (well Android has 2.5, Play Services probably has at least 1.5 billion users). For Google a service with 100 million users is a drop in the bucket :-)
      - jeffbee 6y ago
        1.5 billion monthly active users sending short text messages is a really different network capacity problem compared to 100 million daily active users sending high-definition video streams to each other.
        londons_explore 6y ago
        But it's still small compared to YouTube video content served. Also, the WebRTC stuff all browser based videoconferencing apps are built on supports peer to peer Comms in most cases, so worst case they could have moved all the users over to that in an overload situation.
        jtwaleson 6y ago
        Not sure about the comparison with YouTube. YouTube is one to many, and can be heavily cached. Meet is many to many with no caching.
        jeffbee 6y ago
        Right, and YouTube doesn't need high priority traffic because it has a deep buffer on the receiver, whereas videoconferencing will be disrupted by even a single dropped frame.

tpmx 6y ago

> 30x growth only srsly?

m3kw9 6y ago
To be fair 1 to 30 is 30x growth. It really depend on the original size.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  It says they ended up at 100 million daily active users. The fact that they could deploy that capacity in 60 days should terrify their competitors.
  - stingraycharles 6y ago
    I don’t think so, as their competitors already know Google is Google and has virtually unlimited resources. As far as I understand from the article it was mostly a matter of “hey can we have extra capacity”, which shouldn’t surprise any competitors.
  - jsnell 6y ago
    The competitors scaled by similar factors from similar baselines. Here’s a comment I wrote in April, collecting the then-current info from the three big ones: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23029151 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23029151
  - oblio 6y ago
    Google Search had 1.2 billion users back in 2013, now it probably has 3 billion. Youtube has 2 billion users. Gmail has 1.5 billion users. Android/Play Services has 2.5 billion users (well Android has 2.5, Play Services probably has at least 1.5 billion users). For Google a service with 100 million users is a drop in the bucket :-)
    - jeffbee 6y ago
      1.5 billion monthly active users sending short text messages is a really different network capacity problem compared to 100 million daily active users sending high-definition video streams to each other.
      - londons_explore 6y ago
        But it's still small compared to YouTube video content served. Also, the WebRTC stuff all browser based videoconferencing apps are built on supports peer to peer Comms in most cases, so worst case they could have moved all the users over to that in an overload situation.
        jtwaleson 6y ago
        Not sure about the comparison with YouTube. YouTube is one to many, and can be heavily cached. Meet is many to many with no caching.
        jeffbee 6y ago
        Right, and YouTube doesn't need high priority traffic because it has a deep buffer on the receiver, whereas videoconferencing will be disrupted by even a single dropped frame.