Whatever the number, it would be 10 times better if google didn’t have such a terrible terrible customer service reputation plus a reputation for closing services down.<p>Google utterly fails to understand the need for its customers to trust that google will support and service them and not destroy their business after building on a google platform.<p>Apparently they are completely oblivious to these things being important though.<p>Right here on HN are the influencers who tell companies to use this or that techonology and there’s a loud howling from everyone that googles support is beyond bad and that you’d be mad to risk building on any google service cause they’ll shut it down.
Google is the Valve of the internet space.<p>Like Valve they have created products that took over the whole space.<p>They have a tendency to completely drop things when they don't pick up traction early enough. (artifact, everything Google)<p>There used to be a Halo around both companies in the 2000s, that was slowly eroded in the 2010s.<p>They suck at communicating.<p>They create good products that never see the light of day again (Portal, l4D,Half Life) because their main product (steam, ads) makes so much more money.<p>________<p>GCP has the same problem as Artifact, where Google bull headedly tries to enter a different type of product/business model (b2b, instead of b2c) without adopting any of the cultural must-haves of a b2c company. (customer before product, service, reliability over speed)<p>Tensorflowv2 is failing due to a similar kind of stubbornness.<p>_______________<p>The scary thing is, if Google manages to pull off the culture change (unlikely), I can see them sweeping both AWS and Azure in the cloud space.
Does anyone know if there are numbers somewhere for how much energy the different cloud providers use? Would be interesting to see which is more efficient from that perspective for those of us who care about such things. Energy per $ revenue or even better per compute would be helpful.
I would really love to know what the quarterly revenue is for just compute and storage, for each of the major cloud providers. Including things like G Suite and Office 365 just muddies the waters.
I hate how we are just giving away control over the internet to Amazon/Google.<p>How does a small cloud provider stay in business when up against these multi billion dollar companies? At any point in time, these companies can just lower the cost of their products, and suffer through a few bad quarters while the small businesses slowly bleed out and die.
kubernetes on google cloud rocks. If they kill gcp like they do with other random services I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it, kubernetes is open source and there are lots of other provider. For now, I don’t feel trapped in the least, it’s a great serive, it’s priced right, and the time I save not dealing with AWS nonsense far out weighs the potential downsides of using their services.
Even looking at comparative offerings from different providers, they're really lackluster [1], and in some cases, even more expensive [2].<p>What could be contributing to those large numbers?<p>[1] - Memorystore only allows vertical scaling, no support for GCP managed Redis clusters, no hybrid functionality (only instances in the same VPC network can access Memorystore, whereas ElastiCache offers all of this.<p><a href="https://cloud.google.com/memorystore/docs/redis/networking" rel="nofollow">https://cloud.google.com/memorystore/docs/redis/networking</a>
<a href="https://cloud.google.com/memorystore/docs/redis/scaling-instances" rel="nofollow">https://cloud.google.com/memorystore/docs/redis/scaling-inst...</a><p><a href="https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonElastiCache/latest/red-ug/accessing-elasticache.html" rel="nofollow">https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonElastiCache/latest/red-ug/...</a>
<a href="https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonElastiCache/latest/red-ug/Scaling.html" rel="nofollow">https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonElastiCache/latest/red-ug/...</a><p>[2] - <a href="https://cloud.google.com/memorystore/" rel="nofollow">https://cloud.google.com/memorystore/</a> vs. <a href="https://aws.amazon.com/elasticache/pricing/" rel="nofollow">https://aws.amazon.com/elasticache/pricing/</a>
Article is missing the point. Growth is not the hardest problem in a fast-growing market. The real question is whether they're growing faster than their competitors, and that's unlikely.
Aside: This was the first time I've tried to read a techcrunch article in Austria (or the EU in general). The splash screen implies I <i>must</i> consent to tracking cookies or I can't view their content. Is that not illegal?
Conflating consumer software and cloud infrastructure is a big lie. Microsoft is famous for having started this years ago.<p>Why do they do it?<p>Because AWS is at a $40B run rate, and both Google and Microsoft have to show analysts and customers that they are catching up, and that they are big enough, etc.<p>Real "cloud infrastructure" revenues for Google are probably less than half that.<p>The worst part is that famed and well-paid analysts perpetrate the lie, either by collusion, or by ignorance.
Meh. I'd wish Microsoft and Google would start separating their actual cloud platform (Azure, GCP) revenues from their "cloud" SaaS revenue (Office 365, G Suite). It'd make comparisons to AWS a lot more meaningful.<p>Edit: Apparently Microsoft is already doing this.