[boulos]

That wasn’t my intent, quite the opposite actually. I don’t want it to read as “S3 is awfully slow, that’s what the problem was. If they were using GCS then < awesome outcome >”. Knowing that I work at a competing vendor is useful knowledge in this case.

[hnaccy]

>I don’t want it to read as “S3 is awfully slow, that’s what the problem was. If they were using GCS then < awesome outcome >”.

You don't mention Google at all outside of the opening statement so who would read it that way?

[icelancer]

Because if he doesn't disclose it and we find out, it looks terrible and like he's trying to hide something.

[OJFord]

If I know a competitor wrote it, I don't read it as negative. To me, it's a welcome courtesy, but as you say, I couldn't assume it if absent; so I'd probably paint a negative picture of S3 with the same albeit unprefaced sentence.

(Plus, I'm always pleased to see someone not call it a 'disclaimer'!)

[ksec]

Disclosure of Interest should be a common practice across all Industry and web discussions. It provides a lot of additional perspective, most of the places do not adhere to this.

Fortunately HN has kept the culture of disclosure intact.

[gpm]

Google cloud is a significant direct competitor to AWS. Anything criticizing AWS reads that way to some extent.

[shaklee3]

He mentions Google frequently in his posts for context. It's very useful, and there was nothing disparaging that he said.