Covered in Wired: http://www.wired.com/2008/01/google-to-provi/
Update: And the shutdown article, 11 months later: http://www.wired.com/2008/12/googlescienceda/
Covered in Wired: http://www.wired.com/2008/01/google-to-provi/
Update: And the shutdown article, 11 months later: http://www.wired.com/2008/12/googlescienceda/
Externally, companies like Spotify and Kabam Games rely heavily on BigQuery as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTVFg6YOjWo&list=PLIivdWyY5s...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nv18xmJirs&list=PLIivdWyY5s...
So the story of Google Cloud products, which are paid, supported, and Enterprise-grade, and which are covered by a clear 1 year deprecation policy, are very different from the story of free services.
Public Datasets is just a function of BigQuery's unique ACL functionality.
I'd love to hear industry standards around deprecation of paid services. This is really a way of doing business in the entire world, and I'm not sure why Google is being held to an unreasonable and impossible standard of "never deprecate anything ever!". For example, here is Microsoft's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Discontinued_Microsof...
Google announced Colossus in 2011, is that going to make it to GCP?
For example, Google Cloud Storage and BigQuery Storage both sit on Colossus. Read more on BQ here:
https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2016/01/bigquery-unde...
Google is required to give at least a 1 year warning on shutting down released Cloud products.
I hate people bringing them up - its just being a sucker for marketing. Spotify and Netflix are clearly brands recruited to promote their respective platforms. The only question is how large a discount they are getting among other special treatment in return for their name. I wouldn't be surprised if its conditional on a gag criticising the platform too. These are the sort of situations that are revealed years later to have required a totally isolated and custom solution that bore no resemblance to the service it was intended to promote.
Special partnerships prove nothing because the economics and service you get won't be remotely similar.
If you read some of their blogs, you can see how brutally honest they are about the pros and cons of our services:
https://labs.spotify.com/2016/03/10/spotifys-event-delivery-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTVFg6YOjWo&index=7&list=PLI...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT6tQAIywFQ&index=1&list=PLI...
Finally, does this sound like an engineer who got paid to speak? https://twitter.com/mpjme/status/702167231623516160
Still doesn't mean Google will maintain the public access to this database. They might just as well shut it down and limit its access to Googlers. Like they already did a few years ago.
Every month the first TB is free but if you go over that you have to pay $5 per TB. They are not exactly doing this for free.
I remember those days. GMail was still in beta and ' a big area of concern was "Why won't Google just shut this down when the going gets rough?" '
8 years later GMail has a billion users, and not going anywhere but up.
I haven't been to the future (yet), but I'll happily take any bet you have against BigQuery.
Disclaimer: I'm Felipe Hoffa, and I work at Google. (https://twitter.com/felipehoffa)
There's a difference between experimental free services and Enterprise-grade SLA'd SLO'd fully-supported paid services with a very clear and recorded deprecation policy and an army of customers with contracts and full support from Google CEO and chairman.
If the answer is "Google" then I think people are still right to be cautious.
Or to invert the question; could I put 1TB of my own 'interesting' data into BigQuery and have Google maintain it in perpetuity for free? If not, then why are any of these datasets considered safer?
You can put 1TB of your own interesting data in BigQuery and pay $0.02/GB/month for the data storage fees. I'm sure Google will happily take your money as a paying customer, and keep your data for as long as you want to store it and pay for it.
The value of an email service is how many users it has.
The value of a big database is... who knows? If Google one day decides the content of that database is a strategic asset, they might just as well decide to shut it down to the public and continue using it internally.