3 ms·

Google's reputation is dooming GCP. On the one hand you want to say "GCP is way to big for Google just to kill" but you never know, which makes the decision to

Google's reputation is dooming GCP. On the one hand you want to say "GCP is way to big for Google just to kill" but you never know, which makes the decision to use AWS all that much easier. I honestly wonder if Google will stick it out and make GCP a true competitor to AWS or if they will just kill it in years time.

eknkc 4y ago
I deployed stuff on GCP but we moved to AWS after stability issues and horrendous support experience on GCP. And that was easy because we did not commit to any GCP exclusive services (because they tend to shut down all thr time). On AWS we prefer using things like DynamoDB and that further locks us into AWS. GCP is a joke.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  Funny, we use GCP extensively and never have any issues. I can't speak to the support issues because we've never needed any. AWS is a bit of a mess, and I always dread having to use it.
BizarreByte 4y ago
I mean if I had to bet development time and a product/service that has to run for years I wouldn’t bet it on GCP, precisely because of Google’s reputation. I’m confident AWS will exist in a decade, I’m not confident GCP will. I would never recommend a dependency on a Google service, especially not one that matters where there’s potentially millions of dollars on the line.
pwinnski 4y ago
Amazon publicly stated that they ran their own business on AWS, and however much of an exaggeration that might have been, it gave people the confidence to try it out. The reasoning was clear: if AWS handles Amazon-scale business, they can surely handle my smaller workload. Google is starting with a handicap, in that they have a very strong reputation for killing products that don't meet unknown high standard of performance/revenue. I mean, the term "Google Graveyard" is popular, although I prefer Killed By Google[0]. To counter that handicap for GCP, they need something that stands out as much as Amazon's initial claim, and I haven't seen it. It seems clear that Google isn't running their own infrastructure on GCP. If anything, the hope seems to be that they've spent so much money on GCP, surely they wouldn't shut it down after all of that? But of course, the bright sparks at Google are aware of the Sunk Cost Fallacy as well as anyone else, so... yeah. I have trouble trusting it. 0. https://killedbygoogle.com https://killedbygoogle.com
- jlarocco 4y ago
  > Amazon publicly stated that they ran their own business on AWS, and however much of an exaggeration that might have been, it gave people the confidence to try it out. The reasoning was clear: if AWS handles Amazon-scale business, they can surely handle my smaller workload. I think even more important than the scalability, it implies AWS isn't going away as long as Amazon is in business.
  - fomine3 4y ago
    Or say AWS is now Amazon's business.
- wombatpm 4y ago
  I was on a blind focus group for cloud offerings. Turned out to be Azure, but every IT person their ranked them AWS, Azure, GCP. And GCP was #3 only because Oracle was universally hated

eknkc 4y ago

I deployed stuff on GCP but we moved to AWS after stability issues and horrendous support experience on GCP. And that was easy because we did not commit to any GCP exclusive services (because they tend to shut down all thr time). On AWS we prefer using things like DynamoDB and that further locks us into AWS. GCP is a joke.

DangitBobby 4y ago
Funny, we use GCP extensively and never have any issues. I can't speak to the support issues because we've never needed any. AWS is a bit of a mess, and I always dread having to use it.

BizarreByte 4y ago

I mean if I had to bet development time and a product/service that has to run for years I wouldn’t bet it on GCP, precisely because of Google’s reputation. I’m confident AWS will exist in a decade, I’m not confident GCP will. I would never recommend a dependency on a Google service, especially not one that matters where there’s potentially millions of dollars on the line.

pwinnski 4y ago

Amazon publicly stated that they ran their own business on AWS, and however much of an exaggeration that might have been, it gave people the confidence to try it out. The reasoning was clear: if AWS handles Amazon-scale business, they can surely handle my smaller workload. Google is starting with a handicap, in that they have a very strong reputation for killing products that don't meet unknown high standard of performance/revenue. I mean, the term "Google Graveyard" is popular, although I prefer Killed By Google[0]. To counter that handicap for GCP, they need something that stands out as much as Amazon's initial claim, and I haven't seen it. It seems clear that Google isn't running their own infrastructure on GCP. If anything, the hope seems to be that they've spent so much money on GCP, surely they wouldn't shut it down after all of that? But of course, the bright sparks at Google are aware of the Sunk Cost Fallacy as well as anyone else, so... yeah. I have trouble trusting it. 0. https://killedbygoogle.com https://killedbygoogle.com

jlarocco 4y ago
> Amazon publicly stated that they ran their own business on AWS, and however much of an exaggeration that might have been, it gave people the confidence to try it out. The reasoning was clear: if AWS handles Amazon-scale business, they can surely handle my smaller workload. I think even more important than the scalability, it implies AWS isn't going away as long as Amazon is in business.
- fomine3 4y ago
  Or say AWS is now Amazon's business.
wombatpm 4y ago
I was on a blind focus group for cloud offerings. Turned out to be Azure, but every IT person their ranked them AWS, Azure, GCP. And GCP was #3 only because Oracle was universally hated