Didn't realize Google Cloud was so far behind in revenue and growth. Seems like it would be risky for companies to switch to Google Cloud because it might end up in the graveyard.
Google is unparalleled at building efficient data centers. Cloud already has tons of enterprise customers with contracts. They've spent $$$$$$ creating the infrastructure to be able to cash in over the long term.
Anyone who thinks Google will get out of Cloud (already more than an $8 billion business [1]), as if it were comparable to Reader (which made $0, AFAIK), isn't looking at the economic realities here.
I repeat: Google Cloud has more than $8 billion in annual revenue. And AWS proves that clouds are a profitable business.
I just can't understand how anyone can suggest with a straight face that Google might shut it down.
It’s not really about “will they shut it down?” But rather, will Google continue to invest heavily in GCP if it’s not gaining traction at the pace they want it to? Maybe they’ll find better ways to spend that money. Microsoft got out of the mobile phone business, which seems ludicrous to me, but they weren’t gaining traction, so...
You’ve just kind of described the problem with GCP. It doesn’t matter how technically good they are if they don’t have good Enterprise support and they have no ability to meet the enterprise customer where they are.
The first step of a major cloud migration is often a combination of hybrid solutions and lift and shifts.
Revenue is inconsequential. What is there profit? Cloud is profitable for AWS and MS. We don’t know what the margins are for GCP.
I worked for two shops that migrated to GCP, one from leased space in DCs, one from AWS.
> Seems like it would be risky for companies to switch to Google Cloud because it might end up in the graveyard.
Yeah, there's definitely that risk, and in one of those cases, I disagreed with the move because of it.
That said, depending on what you're doing, GCP's key-value store (BigTable) and analytical DB (BigQuery) struck me as technically more sound than the AWS versions (DynamoDB, Redshift/Athena). As an ecosystem, AWS was far superior, there are more offerings, and they tend to have more features. It's just that they're most likely a managed version of an open-source project.
One place moved specifically because of BigTable. They were on HBase (and not happy with it), so it was the least painful migration option.
I understand the narrative that's going to carry after that article the other day, but I've really enjoyed working with GCP over the last 2 years.
The structure for VM use and their Live Migrate capability for upgrading the hardware underneath with no downtime has been excellent on my more long-lived servers.
My biggest wish is some equivalent of Aurora for PostgreSQL.
Another fairly happy GCP user. They have their issues (everyone does), but GKE is pretty amazing if you don’t have the resources for an in house k8s on AWS team.
I am however fairly pessimistic about their chances. Especially considering the person at the helm is ex-Oracle VP.
I also don’t understand their alternatives... do they want AWS to own the cloud market? They’ve operated Android as the bulwark against Apple, why not view GCP in a similar light?
GCP is fantastic! I've been especially pleased with their network (the GLB is awesome!), BigQuery, Bigtable, GCE live migration, and of course... GKE. I cringe at the thought of having to run Kubernetes myself or settle for an inferior managed solution from Azure or AWS.
Google really dropped the ball on missing cloud computing. With their expertise, they should have owned the space, it's just never the sort of idea that would bubble up in that org.
But balloons to deliver internet in rural areas? They're the leader in that space.
I think it's more they wanted to do it on their own terms. They wanted to provide the best most scalable cloud platform ever in GAE, but users wanted more of a dumbed-down lift-and-shift-friendly variant that AWS offered.
> Seems like it would be risky for companies to switch to Google Cloud because it might end up in the graveyard
It's sort of a Catch-22 for them. They are this far behind in part because people fear they might not be around long term, and they might not be, because people don't want to sign up, because they fear it might not be. :)
And what if some Google employees decide they don’t like your organization? Google has already demonstrated they will cave in to that kind of pressure. How can any non-trivial sized organization bet the farm on gcp after that?
crazygringo|6 years ago
Anyone who thinks Google will get out of Cloud (already more than an $8 billion business [1]), as if it were comparable to Reader (which made $0, AFAIK), isn't looking at the economic realities here.
I repeat: Google Cloud has more than $8 billion in annual revenue. And AWS proves that clouds are a profitable business.
I just can't understand how anyone can suggest with a straight face that Google might shut it down.
[1] https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/google-cloud-annual...
djohnston|6 years ago
freehunter|6 years ago
skywhopper|6 years ago
jxi|6 years ago
[deleted]
Patatarte|6 years ago
scarface74|6 years ago
The first step of a major cloud migration is often a combination of hybrid solutions and lift and shifts.
Revenue is inconsequential. What is there profit? Cloud is profitable for AWS and MS. We don’t know what the margins are for GCP.
dehrmann|6 years ago
> Seems like it would be risky for companies to switch to Google Cloud because it might end up in the graveyard.
Yeah, there's definitely that risk, and in one of those cases, I disagreed with the move because of it.
That said, depending on what you're doing, GCP's key-value store (BigTable) and analytical DB (BigQuery) struck me as technically more sound than the AWS versions (DynamoDB, Redshift/Athena). As an ecosystem, AWS was far superior, there are more offerings, and they tend to have more features. It's just that they're most likely a managed version of an open-source project.
One place moved specifically because of BigTable. They were on HBase (and not happy with it), so it was the least painful migration option.
brightball|6 years ago
The structure for VM use and their Live Migrate capability for upgrading the hardware underneath with no downtime has been excellent on my more long-lived servers.
My biggest wish is some equivalent of Aurora for PostgreSQL.
pm90|6 years ago
I am however fairly pessimistic about their chances. Especially considering the person at the helm is ex-Oracle VP.
I also don’t understand their alternatives... do they want AWS to own the cloud market? They’ve operated Android as the bulwark against Apple, why not view GCP in a similar light?
fairramone|6 years ago
dehrmann|6 years ago
But balloons to deliver internet in rural areas? They're the leader in that space.
daxfohl|6 years ago
jedberg|6 years ago
It's sort of a Catch-22 for them. They are this far behind in part because people fear they might not be around long term, and they might not be, because people don't want to sign up, because they fear it might not be. :)
toohotatopic|6 years ago
They could still make money by being far more efficient when running their software natively on their own stack.
bradleyjg|6 years ago