Hacker News Reader

Comment by danpalmer | Hacker News Reader

For a certain size of customer this problem does go away, and I think this commitment from GCP is an attempt to confirm that.

As a counterpoint, we've had no issues with GCP and have found it to be a better product than the alternatives for what we want. We have an account manager, have received lots of support from Google in setting up, have been able to trial products in closed alpha before release, and haven't been hit by any meaningful deprecations. We also have a contract with SLAs that do not let Google arbitrarily cut us off. Obviously they still could, but at least it would be in explicit violation of a contract.

Also something that is rarely cited as a plus point: we are not a Google competitor, and one of our major partners considered it a significant benefit of using us that we did not host on Amazon services. There are an increasing number of businesses who may see some value in not hosting on AWS.

View on HN

edit: typo, changed $700,000 to $70,000. Also note that isn't income, but revenue.

> For a certain size of customer this problem does go away

> We have an account manager, have received lots of support from Google in setting up, have been able to trial products in closed alpha before release, and haven't been hit by any meaningful deprecations

Too bad that level of customer service doesn't extend across their offerings and to smaller customers. A conservative estimate puts my wife's losses at just over $70,000 for the time her accounts were disabled. That doesn't include potential referrals from customers she would have gained during that time.

I've been an Amazon customer for years, for several of their products, and I have yet to experience an issue that wasn't handled promptly and to my satisfaction.

Several companies I've worked for have used AWS, and we experienced that same commitment to customer service. My network from those companies use AWS for their side projects and startups.

> we are not a Google competitor, and one of our major partners considered it a significant benefit of using us that we did not host on Amazon services.

Some companies don't use or have moved off of GCP for similar reasons.

$700k, really? For 7 weeks?

Must be nice.

Typo, corrected. See edit.

About $100k losses per week?

Is your wife hiring?

Typo, corrected. See edit.

It is a shame yes, and I certainly don't want to invalidate your wife's experience, I'm sure it was a really crap experience and difficult for her business.

I do see a lot of people extrapolating from what is essentially individual customer support up to company customer support. It's not far off extrapolating from a bad experience as an Amazon customer to AWS being a bad option – a comparison I don't often see being made.

I've seen terrible support from AWS on reasonably sized contracts, and I've seen good support from GCP on small contracts. While it's true that on average Amazon's consumer level support is better than Google's, and it may be true that AWS's support is often better than GCP's, these are not hard rules and I think the reality is that GCP is much better than many AWS users give it credit for.

Plus we're only talking about support here! I find GCP a far better product than AWS, but that's a bigger discussion.

> I do see a lot of people extrapolating from what is essentially individual customer support up to company customer support. It's not far off extrapolating from a bad experience as an Amazon customer to AWS being a bad option – a comparison I don't often see being made.

I think the difference with Amazon and some of it's competitors is that Amazon has made customer service a core business tenet as evidenced through "Customer Obsession" being their first leadership principle. It's ingrained in their culture, and it inspires confidence.

At the risk of sounding obtuse, what would be the downsides of hosting on Amazon?

Many companies see Amazon as a competitor and don't want to give them money.

I use to work for a large health insurance company and much of the executive/leadership teams would openly disparage Amazon in meetings. Amazon doesn't even sell health insurance (not yet at least) and they were overly hostile due to PillPack alone.

It was one of the reasons why that company chose GCP over AWS. I imagine this scenario isn't uncommon.

I guess that would make an even stronger argument to use Azure, right?

Maybe for people who have never had the misfortune of using a MS product.

It boils down to 2 factors:

- Giving money to a competitor (even if the product you're paying for isn't competition). This can be hard to justify to e.g. shareholders as being financially responsible.

- Potentially giving away trade secrets to Amazon, either in patterns of usage of AWS, or in actual data that AWS stores.

I would hope the latter is an unnecessary worry, but we've seen them clone retail products from others again and again based on best-selling or high margin products, so why not use intelligence from AWS? I assume it happens at some limited level.

Amazon treats their work staff poorly (at least on the Amazon.com side, if not AWS), and Bezos isn't a very nice human. They throw a lot of their weight around and bully small local governments into succumbing to their conquests. They are a largely unethical company, IMO, and supporting them risks further eroding small business and democratic checks and balances everywhere.

> They throw a lot of their weight around and bully small local governments into succumbing to their conquests. They are a largely unethical company, IMO, and supporting them risks further eroding small business and democratic checks and balances everywhere.

If you strip out the first sentence, and leave the rest... I think you've just ruled out every large corporation, and especially all of the tech megacorps.

Yeah, you're totally right. With cloud (or other) vendors, it's often a "lesser of many evils" kinda thing. Amazon is just particularly and notoriously bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com