Well that’s hardly the problem honestly. AWS is surprisingly good at not dropping services or creating long-term deprecation plans. They don’t have to enter int

Well that’s hardly the problem honestly. AWS is surprisingly good at not dropping services or creating long-term deprecation plans. They don’t have to enter into a contract to guarantee the longevity of their services. It’s definitely what makes AWS so trustworthy. Amazon in general is pretty good at supporting both business and consumer services in the long run, even when some of those services are clearly money losing units. That’s because the company is basically designed like a synergistic portfolio where even money-losing businesses have a purpose in the big picture. And that’s where Google fails. It’s very well known how ruthless Google can be at killing business that don’t produce tangible results. The Alphabet re-org clearly showcases that they are playing a game of optimizing the allocation of their assets. That mentality bleeds down. Unfortunately, you can’t run a Cloud Business like that. To Google’s merit, it seems that they are not running their cloud unit with that mentality (I don’t think I have heard about GCP services that shut down). But it’s clear there’s a generalized feeling in the industry that Google can at any point become impatient with GCP, leaving many stranded. For Google to be a distant third in the Cloud game must be pretty hard. This is something that plays to their strengths and yet they are hardly closing the gap. The big difference is that the companies that are winning (Amazon and Microsoft) are willing to lose in some areas to win in others. They excel at that. Google on the other hand seems to have a hard time with that shit...