Pichai never fully supported google cloud either. The fact google cloud exists is thanks to Amit Singh’s leadership. Palo Alto networks is lucky to have such a visionary CBO at their helm.
AWS bills Amazon an internal rate. It’s a closely held secret that few employees know but supposedly it’s better than at-cost.
Everyone has access! Everyone I worked with at Amazon knew the prices they were spending for the different services they were using or thinking of using.
Not exactly making a strong case.
Ads + Twitch = 9.5B, AWS = 20.5B
Post-AWS launch, writing was on that wall that amortizing your (already large) infrastructure costs across paying customers would be the only way to afford a certain scale and geographic distribution of hardware that was a prerequisite to taxing future value.
The whole "selling excess Q4 capacity" was a myth.
https://www.acquired.fm/episodes/Amazon-web-services goes into it in great detail.
It's a podcast first and foremost so the URL is still good for the direct links in various podcast players.
Last year google started warning some internal teams that they had to limit usage. It’s possible they’re running out of compute.
Google’s main problem IMO is the lack of customer focus. The products are good, the experience is not as good.
The ONLY official channel they have where you can talk to someone that I am aware of, is sales and restricted to sales only.
This was probably a conscious decision they made, derp-derp if we eliminate everything we build value for the shareholder, except for the fact they didn't think it through all the way in the sense that they have competitors. Microsoft is also bad, but you can actually eventually get to an MS employee if there is a problem and MS does have official employees on Reddit to keep an eye on things, etc. So, if I was a business, I'd look to Microsoft first, NOT GOOGLE, because Google can't be trusted because they are just an automated chatbot with absolutely zero support.
I do use Google services, but I'd be frightened to rely on them for anything serious.
The only company I've ever dealt with which was worse at taking your money was IBM. In both cases, it was eerily similar: you could get a room full of people to do a demo but the salespeople seemed to assume their reputation meant success was inevitable and they didn't have to actually do anything like … eeew … work to close deals. In neither case were we the biggest deal in town but also far from the smallest, and in both cases the experience meant they missed out on larger sales later.
IBM was similar: we were trying to buy Opteron servers, let our rep know, had a bunch of people show up, ended with them saying they’d send us a quote, no reply to multiple requests. Maybe they weren’t interested in mere 6 figure purchases but they could have said so.
(And, sure, we aren’t the biggest customer but you don’t get large deals if you can’t handle medium size deals. AWS shows up & they get considerably more business.)
Culturally it didn’t get enterprise, e.g. “ditch oracle and move to spanner”.
Technology wise it was not setup for enterprise.
Staff wise it was paying way too high of a total-comp for non revenue roles. TAMs making 400k/year on accounts spending < 5M/year.
However it could have addressed all those. There were people inside advocating for those changes. Eng and Product leadership refused to listen. And the CEO refused to reward business success and instead rewarded product launches od multiple un-successful messaging apps.
Edit: my experience is with aws not gcp. Gcp is a bit of a non entity in enterprise cloud.
What do you think is going to happen at peak of Amazon needs it’s own excess capacity at the same time customers need access capacity?
Even today, much of Amazon is not on AWS.
S3 was built from the old image hosting designs, but better.
StepFunctions and SWF before it are re-designed based on the 5 internal workflow engines that existed (and still do exist).
SQS is a re-do of AMP.
DynamoDB is a re-do of Sable.
Redshift is a re-do of their internal partitioning and querying of Oracle databases but on non-Oracle databases. Their new iteration of Redshift is designed to replicate Andes + Dryad/Cradle.
The people responsible for writing and maintaining AWS Services are my coworkers…
Your comment above doesn’t seem to reflect that history, so I just wanted to make sure it was stated.
AWS is also entirely built on Amazons builder tools like Apollo and Pipelines. So it’s really unfair to say “AWS was built from the ground up”
But that doesn’t mean they just took a few extra computers they had to spare and start hosting external customers on the same metal used by Amazon retail.
The only product that I know of in recent history that came from Amazon to AWS without many changes (and without any API or automation story) is Amazon Connect.
You wouldn't say something is built "on" Github.
Your continuous deployment and continuous delivery toolset isn't really what's running a multi-tenant cloud environment.
They’re the same CPUs they just use an internal API to provision and not AWS APIs. I’m pretty sure the internal APIs also just wrap ec2 et al at this point (for backwards compatibility)
Much of the Amazon infrastructure predates AWS and was built on homegrown systems. A lot of wasn’t ported over.
If you want to see what it looks like to have an Amazon product made available to AWS and that wasn’t designed specifically for AWS, look no further than Amazon Connect. There were no publicly available APIS for years to automate anything. Every AWS native service is API first.