[justinsb]

I can assure you that's not the case! Also, while people like to repeat this meme, Google Cloud does have a formal deprecation policy (https://cloud.google.com/terms/), whose intent is to give you some assurances.

(I work at Google, on GKE, though I am not a lawyer and thus don't work on the deprecation policy)

[chrisseaton]

> Google may discontinue any Services or any portion or feature for any reason at any time without liability to Customer

for any reason

at any time

[uluyol]

Nice job cherry picking text.

> 7.1 Discontinuance of Services. Subject to Section 7.2, Google may discontinue > any Services or any portion or feature for any reason at any time without > liability to Customer.

Let's take a look at Section 7.2:

> 7.2 Deprecation Policy. Google will announce if it intends to discontinue or > make backwards incompatible changes to the Services specified at the URL in > the next sentence. Google will use commercially reasonable efforts to continue > to operate those Services versions and features identified at > https://cloud.google.com/terms/deprecation without these changes for at least > one year after that announcement, unless (as Google determines in its > reasonable good faith judgment): > > (i) required by law or third party relationship (including if there is a change > in applicable law or relationship), or > > (ii) doing so could create a security risk or substantial economic or material > technical burden. > > The above policy is the "Deprecation Policy."

To me that looks like a reasonable deprecation policy.

[scoot]

> To me that looks like a reasonable deprecation policy.

It might be, until they jack up the prices 15X with limited notice (looking at you, Google maps [1]). No deprecation needed, just force users off the platform unless they're willing to pay a massive premium.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=google+maps+price+increase

[jkaplowitz]

Google Maps has never been subjected to that policy, unlike GCP services. These org chart divisions are real but only clear to Googlers, Xooglers (I'm in this category), and people who pay extremely close attention.

The fact that they're all Google makes reputation damage bleed across meaningfully different parts of what's in truth now a conglomerate under the umbrella name Google.

[jjeaff]

Except all the Google maps setup and API keys are generated from the gcp UI and the billing happens on the cloud platform as well. While maps didn't start as a gcp product, they seem to have rolled it in to gcp fully.

[jkaplowitz]

Not fully. Really what happened is they did a re-org that gave them Google Cloud as an umbrella brand including GCP, Google Maps Platform (this new version of Google Maps as a commercial service), Chrome, Android, G Suite...

The bit of Maps Platform integration for management of the billing and API layer was called out in the announcement blog as an integration with the console specifically, and the docs and other branding around Maps Platform remain distinct from GCP still in excessively subtle ways that Googlers pay more attention to than everyone else, like hosting the docs on developers.google.com instead of cloud.google.com and having Platform in its name separately from Cloud Platform.

This stuff makes sense to Googlers not only because of the org chart but also because Google has a pretty unified API layer technology and because Google put in a lot of work to unify billing tech & management. Reusing that is efficient but not always clear.

But you're right to be confused. Their branding is a mess and always has been. This is the same company that thought Google Play Books makes sense as a product name.

Google's product / PR / comms / exec people are very bad at understanding how external people who don't know Google's org chart and internal tech will perceive these things, or at least bad at prioritizing those concerns.

They live and breathe their corporate internals too much to realize this. Some Google engineers and tech writers realize the confusion but pick other battles to fight instead (like making good quality products).

They do at least document which services are subjected to the GCP Deprecation Policy (Maps is not there): https://cloud.google.com/terms/deprecation

As for what products are actually part of GCP, it's the parts of this page that aren't an external partner's brand name, aren't called out separately like G Suite or Cloud Identity or Cloud Search, and aren't purely open source projects like Knative and Istio (as opposed to the productized versions within GCP), with the caveat that the level so far of integration into GCP of Google acquisitions like Apigee, Firebase, and Stackdriver varies depending on per-company specifics: https://cloud.google.com/products/

G Suite and Cloud Identity accounts can be used with GCP, just like any other Google accounts. They are part of Google Cloud but not Google Cloud Platform.

Hope I waded through the mess correctly for you. :)

[matwood]

The maps price gouge is yet another reason I will not use google services for anything but ancillary services.

[omeid2]

Let's not forget that Google can change the terms as they please with a 90 Days notice as per Section 7.1 Modifications of the terms. So any promise that is longer than 90 days, even without a escape hatch like Section 7.2, would be legally weak and subject to change at any time without much recourse.

[Jedi72]

It's ok I guess but still lets them turn it off if, in their judgement, its an economic burden i.e. costing them money.

If they ever do deprecate something people have built on though they're gonna get absolutely crucified. That's probably better protection than any terms of service.

[Fizzer]

> If they ever do deprecate something people have built on though they're gonna get absolutely crucified.

They do this all the time, and they get crucified every time. I built a Google Hangout App and a Chrome App, both of which were platforms eventually shut down.

This is where the meme came from, and it's why I personally stopped building on top of Google products. A 1-year deprecation policy is no assurance to me if I plan for my app to live longer than that.

[jkaplowitz]

Their approach to things like GCP is very different than their approach to those other areas of Google. But they don't separate their branding or unify their deprecation attitudes enough to avoid cross-org-chart reputation damage like this.

[BurnGpuBurn]

So basically they screw you over on either medium or hard, and according to you the real problem is them not telling us clearly whether or not we receive the medium or hard screw over option.

By the way that GCP is so full of loopholes where Google can get out of its obligations its laughable. So it's not even that clear cut that the GCP is really a better alternative.

And even when it turns out to be legally sound, when stuff like this happens, who's going to sue google over it? Nobody, and they know it.

[kuyan]

> It's ok I guess but still lets them turn it off if, in their judgement, its an economic burden i.e. costing them money.

If a service Google runs is losing money, what reason would they have to not shut it down?

[lovich]

With this terms of service, none. Which is why people don't trust them.

If I pay you for a service that would take time to migrate off of, and you are making money off me now, I am going to be ripshit if you decide to just turn it off because it's suddenly not making money for you in the short term. Google's done this a lot, and the fact that don't provide concrete time lines in their contract gives even less reason to trust them

[jkaplowitz]

It's not about the contract. AWS doesn't even have a deprecation policy in the contract - seriously, GCP provides more legally binding guarantees than AWS. It's about trust.

People look at AWS's track record, and trust that. People look at Google's track record, overlook what to an inside-the-company Googler perspective are dramatically significant organizational boundaries or product lifecycle definitions that are very poorly communicated outside the company, mentally apply reputational damage from one part of Google (or from a preview-stage GCP product) to a different part of the company (or to a generally available GCP product), and don't trust that.

Google has always been worse at externally facing PR than at the internal reality, even when I worked there (2011-2015). Major company weakness.

But the internal reality inside GCP, perceptions aside, is pretty good even now.

[yardie]

This is the subtle, but important, difference between SaaS and PaaS/IaaS. Services are to use. Platforms are built upon. Flickr is a service. If they shutdown I'll get another one. If they shutdown I'll just move to another. GCP is a platform, if they shutdown I have to re-architect the entire thing from scratch.

If it's costing them money they haven't figured out a model, yet, that works in their favour.

[dodobirdlord]

Customers won't pay money in the first place to use a service if it may vanish out from under them? I expect a cloud service provider not to offer a service unless they think it is going to be profitable, and I expect them to continue to offer it even if it turns out not to be profitable, because otherwise I will take my business to a cloud service provider that will give me that guarantee.

[8ytecoder]

>Subject to Section 7.2

Which is the deprecation policy. (I mean I share your frustration with Google's what-appears-to-be-at-least haphazard policy of shutting down services instead of trying to gain traction. But, let's not misrepresent what they say).

[chrisseaton]

I thought that 'subject to 7.2' meant that they can use the escape-hatch there 'substantial economic or material technical burden'? They can list anything under that.

I don't think it's wrong - they can deprecate any service they want to do whenever they want, unless people have paid for and signed a contract that says otherwise which I guess people aren't doing.

But the policy doesn't really guarantee anything at all does it, due to the reference escape-hatches? It might as well not exist?

[joshuamorton]

The preceding line is the imprtant part. Which is essentially

"Subject to the deprecation policy [which says that Google will give at least 1 year notice before cancelling services], Google may discontinue..."

In other words, at any time, google can give you a years notice.

(I work at Google, but am not a lawyer and this isn't official in any capacity).

Please don't selectively quote things out of context to give a misleading impression.

[chrisseaton]

But what do these things mean?

> commercially reasonable

> substantial economic or material technical burden

Is one engineer working on an old service to keep it alive commercially reasonable or a substantial burden? I don't know. Do you?

In practice this policy lets them shut off anything they want any time they want. Again it's their playground they can do what they want unless they signed a contract saying they'd do something else for you so I don't have a problem with it.

[joshuamorton]

I think you're ascribing an unreasonable amount of bad faith here, and, to rephrase what I had here before, you're approaching this from an engineering perspective, not a legal one. And that's not how those things work.

To be clear, that policy is a contract. And those things would be decided by a jury. And if my understanding is correct, the reasonable person standard applies. So you can answer this yourself, do you think a reasonable person would believe that your interpretation is valid?

If not, why mention it?

[lovich]

>If not, why mention it?

Because it makes more people feel comfortable enough to use your services and pay you, without actually binding you towards any sort of behavior that would cost you money. There's a direct financial incentive here to use legalese to give the semblance of reliability without having to deliver on it

[housingpost]

I’d say google earned that bad faith this year alone with what they did with maps.

[joshuamorton]

As another user mentioned, maps isn't cloud.

[mempko]

Google lost our faith after shutting down countless services.

[xchaotic]

By the way, that's probably more than $100k/year if he does. Probably triple that with the overhead of the office space, HR and middle management.

[chongli]

But hey, it's all spelled out in the policy, so don't say we didn't warn you!

Caveat emptor, folks.

[brian-armstrong]

What happens when they suddenly deprecate the deprecation policy?

[omeid2]

Nothing, sort of. Subject to "Section 1.7 Modifications" of Terms:

b. To the Agreement:

Google may make changes to this Agreement, including pricing (and any linked documents) from time to time. .... Google will provide at least 90 days’ advance notice for materially adverse changes to any SLAs by either: (i) sending an email to Customer’s primary point of contact; (ii) posting a notice in the Admin Console; or (iii) posting a notice to the applicable SLA webpage. If Customer does not agree to the revised Agreement, please stop using the Services. Google will post any modification to this Agreement to the Terms URL.

[skrebbel]

So the deprecation policy is "you got 90 days".

[whydoineedthis]

im pretty sure he just forget the /s (sarcasm) on his post, but this was pretty cool information anyway, so thanks!

[davemp]

I think it’s telling of Google’s culture that the corporate arm felt the need to formalize this in law. I won’t pretend to know what it’s telling. Just suggest that you listen for yourself. Look at rule of law versus the ideas of liberty if you’d like a stronger nudge.

[jeffcore]

AWS' Customer Agreement[1] essentially has the same language. I wouldn't be surprised to see similar language from other cloud providers as well. Seems rather prudent on their part.

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/

[davemp]

I would suggest the inference I was alluding to would also apply amazon.

Note how I never stated the inference. This is because I wanted to share a way of thinking without feeling the responsibility to reply to people attempting to force me to prove some prescriptive, arbitrary inference rule by exhaustion. I do not participate in such practices casually. I also consider it rude to subject people to such practices without consent. I also believe it is a practice that kills online discussion platforms. See this community’s thought provoking guidelines :)

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.