3 ms·

Genuine answer: Setting up Facebook WOULD be extremely challenging for a company like SpaceX. There's a reason Facebook is worth about 10x what SpaceX is worth,

by blagie 3y ago

Genuine answer: Setting up Facebook WOULD be extremely challenging for a company like SpaceX. There's a reason Facebook is worth about 10x what SpaceX is worth, and most of that value doesn't come from the ability to build software. Facebook isn't even particularly good at building software. To give an example in a closer domain: Look at how long Google lost money on cloud services through 2022 (over $15B in loses), and now only makes money by creative accounting (bundling "cloud services" together versus breaking out GCP; Microsoft does something similar with Office 365 and Azure). Like many potential customers, I would not consider GCP because: 1) Google "support" is a buggy, automated algorithm which randomly thwacks customers on the head 2) Google randomly discontinues products 3) I've seen a half-dozen to a dozen instances where buying from Google was penny-wise and pound-foolish, and so have many other engineers I've worked with. Google's overall attitude is that I'm a statistic defined by my value to Google. Google can and will externalize costs onto me. That attitude is 100% right for adwords and search, which are defined by margins, but not for something like GCP. If I am going with a cloud service/platform, I'll go with Amazon, Microsoft, or just about anyone else, for that matter. That's not that Google is a bad company. Google actually did have the skill set to build the software and data centers for a very, very good cloud provider. It's just that Google's core competencies lie very far from providing reliable service to customers, customer support, or all the things which go into providing me with stability and business continuity. "Fixing" this would require a wholesale culture, value, and attitude change, and developing a core competency very far from what Google is good at. I put "fixing" in quotes since if you develop too many core competencies, you usually stop being good at any of them. Focus is important, and there's a reason many businesses spin out units outside of their domains of focus. If Google is able to become good at this, but in the process loses their edge in their current core competencies, that's probably a bad deal. FWIW: I haven't yet formed an opinion on NVidia's cloud strategy. However, their core competencies appear to be very much in the "hard" domains like silicon, digital design, machine learning rather than "soft" ones. Another relevant example for what can happen when hard skills are de-emphasized at engineering-driven companies is Boeing (if you've been following recent stories; if not, watch a documentary).

fragmede 3y ago
Eh I mean Google moved GCP's revenue around because Microsoft was doing that to make Azure look bigger than GCP. If you can't beat em, join em. Google's got long term contracts with a lot of companies and the government, so GCP isn't going to shut down anytime soon. Their consumer products division has problems with product longevy, but we're not paying them corporation level money or signing serious contracts when buying a Stadia subscription. So it's just business. What I've heard is Azure is a pain in the ass, and things take three times as long to set up there, for some reason. There's also Oracle cloud but you hear way less about them. out there.
- blagie 3y ago
  Having been down this road a few times, this: > What I've heard is Azure is a pain in the ass, and things take three times as long to set up there, for some reason. Doesn't matter. The cost here is a rounding error. What does matter is something like this: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/what-is-mv3 https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate... https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2021/05/Google-Docs-Canvas-Based-Rendering-Update.html https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2021/05/Google-Docs-... https://workspace.google.com/blog/product-announcements/elevating-user-trust-in-our-api-ecosystems https://workspace.google.com/blog/product-announcements/elev... https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://www.tomsguide.com/news/g-suite-free-shutdown https://www.tomsguide.com/news/g-suite-free-shutdown Etc. These sorts of behaviors take out whole swaths of businesses wholesale. It's random, and you never know when it will happen to you. It's the difference between managing a classroom with: - an annoying kid throwing spitballs every day (Azure) - the quiet kid who, one day, brings an assault rifle, a few extra mags, and starts spraying bullets into the cafeteria (Google). Yes, one is a constant source of annoyance, but really, it's very manageable when you consider the alternative. (Oracle, in the school analogy, is the mean kid who spreads false rumors about you. As far as I can tell, there is never a sound, long-term business reason to pick Oracle. Most of the reason Oracle is chosen is they're very good at setting up offerings which align to misaligned incentives; they're very often the right choice for maximizing some quarterly or annual objective so someone gets their bonus. In return, the firm is usually completely milked by Oracle a few years down the line. By that point, the decision maker has typically collected their bonus, moved on, and it's no longer their problem.)

by blagie 3y ago

fragmede 3y ago

Eh I mean Google moved GCP's revenue around because Microsoft was doing that to make Azure look bigger than GCP. If you can't beat em, join em. Google's got long term contracts with a lot of companies and the government, so GCP isn't going to shut down anytime soon. Their consumer products division has problems with product longevy, but we're not paying them corporation level money or signing serious contracts when buying a Stadia subscription. So it's just business. What I've heard is Azure is a pain in the ass, and things take three times as long to set up there, for some reason. There's also Oracle cloud but you hear way less about them. out there.

blagie 3y ago
Having been down this road a few times, this: > What I've heard is Azure is a pain in the ass, and things take three times as long to set up there, for some reason. Doesn't matter. The cost here is a rounding error. What does matter is something like this: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/what-is-mv3 https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate... https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2021/05/Google-Docs-Canvas-Based-Rendering-Update.html https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2021/05/Google-Docs-... https://workspace.google.com/blog/product-announcements/elevating-user-trust-in-our-api-ecosystems https://workspace.google.com/blog/product-announcements/elev... https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://killedbygoogle.com/ https://www.tomsguide.com/news/g-suite-free-shutdown https://www.tomsguide.com/news/g-suite-free-shutdown Etc. These sorts of behaviors take out whole swaths of businesses wholesale. It's random, and you never know when it will happen to you. It's the difference between managing a classroom with: - an annoying kid throwing spitballs every day (Azure) - the quiet kid who, one day, brings an assault rifle, a few extra mags, and starts spraying bullets into the cafeteria (Google). Yes, one is a constant source of annoyance, but really, it's very manageable when you consider the alternative. (Oracle, in the school analogy, is the mean kid who spreads false rumors about you. As far as I can tell, there is never a sound, long-term business reason to pick Oracle. Most of the reason Oracle is chosen is they're very good at setting up offerings which align to misaligned incentives; they're very often the right choice for maximizing some quarterly or annual objective so someone gets their bonus. In return, the firm is usually completely milked by Oracle a few years down the line. By that point, the decision maker has typically collected their bonus, moved on, and it's no longer their problem.)