5 ms·

Ex-GCP here. Unless you shell out at least $15,000 / mo [1] for a Technical Account Manager (TAM) you are a nobody to Google Cloud. Hence all the bots suspendin

by osipov 6y ago

Ex-GCP here. Unless you shell out at least $15,000 / mo [1] for a Technical Account Manager (TAM) you are a nobody to Google Cloud. Hence all the bots suspending accounts and scripted processes. If you are a small business, bite the bullet and use AWS. [1] https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/enterprise-support-for-gcp.pdf https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/enterprise-support...

maxwellg 6y ago
AWS isn't a bullet to bite
- pizza234 6y ago
  I suppose he refers to the fact that GCP may be cheaper, therefore AWS may be less desirable on the strictly economical side.
  - liability 6y ago
    Only if you forget to factor potential support problems into your economic analysis. What would your systems being down for a week because Google capriciously shut you down cost you?
- monoideism 6y ago
  The "bullet" in this analogy is AWS's notoriously high cost.
  - dcanelhas 6y ago
    But which runs on most renewable energy?
    - sascha_sl 6y ago
      The cheapest provider in existence runs on renewables (Hetzner Online). There isn't too much of a difference, especially for EU datacenters as they have a high excess of renewables and the energy market works in a way where you pay for renewables but just as everyone else you'll be using the base capacity generating dirty sources.
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    Notorious in what way? The price charts are all publicly available. Anyone can check for themselves what the costs are.
    - kadoban 6y ago
      And yet nobody can predict what anything will actually cost. If you make your prices complicated enough, transparency doesn't mean much.
    - pizza234 6y ago
      True, but due to the large extent of the services provided/required, it's very hard to know the unexpected costs, even if one has experience. For example, one will hardly think of the cost of the disk speed (IOPS, in AWS), before moving to AWS. Then, they will suddenly have to deal with it (note that IOPS will be mostly opportunity costs, in case one doesn't choose provisioned IOPS of larger capacity).
    - monoideism 6y ago
      Notorious doesn't mean "secret" or "hidden", as you seem to imply here. It means "well-known, usually for negative reasons". AWS prices are well-known, and not for being low. Now, the benefit of AWS may well be worth the high cost - that's a separate question.
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  ? AWS is run like a gigantic social experiment in "how half-assed and crusty can we make it and still have people pay?" The reason we put up with them is because A. they're the new IBM, nobody gets fired for choosing AWS, B. you can reliably reach a human who will at least give you a straight answer when you start to suspect that the AI-powered auto-scaling is actually marketing fluff sprayed over a double/halve cron job that runs at the top of the hour.
  - m0zg 6y ago
    ^ My impression as well, after spending nearly $200K of my clients' money on AWS. I use GCP for my own work (+ a bunch of on-prem hardware) FWIW, but "the new IBM" phenomenon and "half assedness" is very real and palpable in the case of AWS.
  - oarabbus_ 6y ago
    >B. you can reliably reach a human who will at least give you a straight answer when you start to suspect that the AI-powered auto-scaling is actually marketing fluff sprayed over a double/halve cron job that runs at the top of the hour. You say this as if it's an afterthought as opposed to an incredibly important and massive advantage AWS has over GCP.
    - jjoonathan 6y ago
      It's one of two reasons I use a service that I otherwise despise. It's not just important, it's an overriding factor.
  - pc86 6y ago
    This is great for AWS compared to GCP, but what about Azure? If anyone was "the new IBM" I would have expected it to be Microsoft (but I agree, it's not).
  - maest 6y ago
    Off-topic, but this might be a good opportunity to address this: Do people find "?" as being aggressive? I think questions generally, tend to be aggressive (which is why deflecting back at your opponent is common in online arguments), and I'm having a hard time seeing how a question mark does more than just attempt to annoy the other person. I'm curious what others think, I may be too sensitive.
busterarm 6y ago
We have a TAM, but it doesn't buy us much. They use their TAMs as a sales lever to get you to use all of the vendor-lock in features. They'll help you architect your platform so that it won't run anywhere else and charge you for the privilege. You can keep telling them all you want about how you operate multi-cloud and how you won't budge on that and they'll just keep trying to run higher up your flag pole. For actual issues needing real support, like when anything breaks, they're useless.
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  We have a TAM as well and they've not show any value. In fact, every issue we've had we've had to escalate through non traditional means (IE personal relationships). Google absolutely does not care. We've ultimately decided that we're moving out of Google strictly to AZURE / AWS, and ironically enough Oracle.
  - apapli 6y ago
    The job title “account manager” says it all. That is a 100% sales role. So don’t expect deep technical expertise. Any assistance rendered will be to grow the vendor footprint.
- verst 6y ago
  That matches my experience actually having worked on the GCP support team. The TAMs just deferred anything technical to the support team... unnecessarily escalating things and being pushy even though we were already investigating the support request with highest priority.
Igelau 6y ago
> minimum $15000/month > Minimum 12 month contract > One TAM unit provides on average one business day’s worth of effort per week Just to have an ear on deck about Google's issues? It sounds like the platform is bad enough that we're in the ballpark of Bald Tony the TAM coming in with a bat and saying "nice place ya got here in this rough neighborhood... pity if something bad happened to it!"

by osipov 6y ago

maxwellg 6y ago

AWS isn't a bullet to bite

pizza234 6y ago
I suppose he refers to the fact that GCP may be cheaper, therefore AWS may be less desirable on the strictly economical side.
- liability 6y ago
  Only if you forget to factor potential support problems into your economic analysis. What would your systems being down for a week because Google capriciously shut you down cost you?
monoideism 6y ago
The "bullet" in this analogy is AWS's notoriously high cost.
- dcanelhas 6y ago
  But which runs on most renewable energy?
  - sascha_sl 6y ago
    The cheapest provider in existence runs on renewables (Hetzner Online). There isn't too much of a difference, especially for EU datacenters as they have a high excess of renewables and the energy market works in a way where you pay for renewables but just as everyone else you'll be using the base capacity generating dirty sources.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  Notorious in what way? The price charts are all publicly available. Anyone can check for themselves what the costs are.
  - kadoban 6y ago
    And yet nobody can predict what anything will actually cost. If you make your prices complicated enough, transparency doesn't mean much.
  - pizza234 6y ago
    True, but due to the large extent of the services provided/required, it's very hard to know the unexpected costs, even if one has experience. For example, one will hardly think of the cost of the disk speed (IOPS, in AWS), before moving to AWS. Then, they will suddenly have to deal with it (note that IOPS will be mostly opportunity costs, in case one doesn't choose provisioned IOPS of larger capacity).
  - monoideism 6y ago
    Notorious doesn't mean "secret" or "hidden", as you seem to imply here. It means "well-known, usually for negative reasons". AWS prices are well-known, and not for being low. Now, the benefit of AWS may well be worth the high cost - that's a separate question.
jjoonathan 6y ago
? AWS is run like a gigantic social experiment in "how half-assed and crusty can we make it and still have people pay?" The reason we put up with them is because A. they're the new IBM, nobody gets fired for choosing AWS, B. you can reliably reach a human who will at least give you a straight answer when you start to suspect that the AI-powered auto-scaling is actually marketing fluff sprayed over a double/halve cron job that runs at the top of the hour.
- m0zg 6y ago
  ^ My impression as well, after spending nearly $200K of my clients' money on AWS. I use GCP for my own work (+ a bunch of on-prem hardware) FWIW, but "the new IBM" phenomenon and "half assedness" is very real and palpable in the case of AWS.
- oarabbus_ 6y ago
  >B. you can reliably reach a human who will at least give you a straight answer when you start to suspect that the AI-powered auto-scaling is actually marketing fluff sprayed over a double/halve cron job that runs at the top of the hour. You say this as if it's an afterthought as opposed to an incredibly important and massive advantage AWS has over GCP.
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    It's one of two reasons I use a service that I otherwise despise. It's not just important, it's an overriding factor.
- pc86 6y ago
  This is great for AWS compared to GCP, but what about Azure? If anyone was "the new IBM" I would have expected it to be Microsoft (but I agree, it's not).
- maest 6y ago
  Off-topic, but this might be a good opportunity to address this: Do people find "?" as being aggressive? I think questions generally, tend to be aggressive (which is why deflecting back at your opponent is common in online arguments), and I'm having a hard time seeing how a question mark does more than just attempt to annoy the other person. I'm curious what others think, I may be too sensitive.

busterarm 6y ago

We have a TAM, but it doesn't buy us much. They use their TAMs as a sales lever to get you to use all of the vendor-lock in features. They'll help you architect your platform so that it won't run anywhere else and charge you for the privilege. You can keep telling them all you want about how you operate multi-cloud and how you won't budge on that and they'll just keep trying to run higher up your flag pole. For actual issues needing real support, like when anything breaks, they're useless.

ganoushoreilly 6y ago
We have a TAM as well and they've not show any value. In fact, every issue we've had we've had to escalate through non traditional means (IE personal relationships). Google absolutely does not care. We've ultimately decided that we're moving out of Google strictly to AZURE / AWS, and ironically enough Oracle.
- apapli 6y ago
  The job title “account manager” says it all. That is a 100% sales role. So don’t expect deep technical expertise. Any assistance rendered will be to grow the vendor footprint.
verst 6y ago
That matches my experience actually having worked on the GCP support team. The TAMs just deferred anything technical to the support team... unnecessarily escalating things and being pushy even though we were already investigating the support request with highest priority.

Igelau 6y ago

> minimum $15000/month > Minimum 12 month contract > One TAM unit provides on average one business day’s worth of effort per week Just to have an ear on deck about Google's issues? It sounds like the platform is bad enough that we're in the ballpark of Bald Tony the TAM coming in with a bat and saying "nice place ya got here in this rough neighborhood... pity if something bad happened to it!"