4 ms·

When they first launched their cloud products, yes. GCP launched before the shutdown of Reader and the whole "Google kills everything" meme started, and I think

When they first launched their cloud products, yes. GCP launched before the shutdown of Reader and the whole "Google kills everything" meme started, and I think it would have had a lot more difficulty getting going if it had launched two years later. Similarly AWS's cloud computing launched during the time period where Amazon was blowing everyone away with their logistics and had legendarily good customer service that'd bend over backwards to ensure that customers were happy.

Semaphor 4y ago
That's actually a very good point. Disillusionment with both, and exposure of dirty deeds, started way later. I did not think of that.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  'Familiarity breeds contempt'... But Zuckerberg pre-empted that, he was quite up-front about the fact that you couldn't trust him from day -10 or so. But even today I would trust that Google does not have a department that scans the contents for your instances for ways to improve their ad revenue, nor do I believe that AWS is secretly selling the contents of your VMs to the nearest equivalent of Cambridge Analytica.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    There are stories about both, but vastly more for Amazon about doing something themselves that they saw one of the sellers on their store do. So I don't think your example holds too well.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      That's true, but Amazon sellers are well aware of the fact that they are operating behind enemy lines and AWS hosting has an entirely different level of expectations associated with it. Even a single case of Amazon raiding the contents of a customer VM to benefit Amazon the retail department would likely have an incredible backlash, so much so that I doubt that over the course that they've been in business we wouldn't have had a tell-all from an employee that was let go. I doubt if AWS would recover from the hit to their reputation if someone provided proof of this happening. The same, by the way, goes for parties operating on either Google or Apple's app stores: they are treading on very thin ice and if either one of those ever decides to go into the market that you yourself are in and are successful in you can pretty much count on a removal from the respective app store on some pretext, even if that requires writing your very own app store rule.

Semaphor 4y ago

That's actually a very good point. Disillusionment with both, and exposure of dirty deeds, started way later. I did not think of that.

jacquesm 4y ago
'Familiarity breeds contempt'... But Zuckerberg pre-empted that, he was quite up-front about the fact that you couldn't trust him from day -10 or so. But even today I would trust that Google does not have a department that scans the contents for your instances for ways to improve their ad revenue, nor do I believe that AWS is secretly selling the contents of your VMs to the nearest equivalent of Cambridge Analytica.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  There are stories about both, but vastly more for Amazon about doing something themselves that they saw one of the sellers on their store do. So I don't think your example holds too well.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    That's true, but Amazon sellers are well aware of the fact that they are operating behind enemy lines and AWS hosting has an entirely different level of expectations associated with it. Even a single case of Amazon raiding the contents of a customer VM to benefit Amazon the retail department would likely have an incredible backlash, so much so that I doubt that over the course that they've been in business we wouldn't have had a tell-all from an employee that was let go. I doubt if AWS would recover from the hit to their reputation if someone provided proof of this happening. The same, by the way, goes for parties operating on either Google or Apple's app stores: they are treading on very thin ice and if either one of those ever decides to go into the market that you yourself are in and are successful in you can pretty much count on a removal from the respective app store on some pretext, even if that requires writing your very own app store rule.