[crazygringo]

Google is unparalleled at building efficient data centers. Cloud already has tons of enterprise customers with contracts. They've spent $$$$$$ creating the infrastructure to be able to cash in over the long term.

Anyone who thinks Google will get out of Cloud (already more than an $8 billion business [1]), as if it were comparable to Reader (which made $0, AFAIK), isn't looking at the economic realities here.

I repeat: Google Cloud has more than $8 billion in annual revenue. And AWS proves that clouds are a profitable business.

I just can't understand how anyone can suggest with a straight face that Google might shut it down.

[1] https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/google-cloud-annual...

[djohnston]

Because the mandate was to be top 2 by 2023 and that looks doubtful.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Mandates in a large company generally do not imply a threat to nuke the entire organization if the mandate isn't met.

[crazygringo]

Exactly this.

Corporate leaders set stretch goals all the time -- that's part of their job. Not meeting them just means certain VP's might not get their full million-dollar bonuses -- not that a billions-dollar business will shutter and lay off 1000's of people.

[djohnston]

In a large company, sure, but in Google? They nuke their own stuff all the time, users be damned. Since AWS offers a larger ecosystem, and doesn't have the Google product TTL of like 5 years, I really don't know why anyone would use GCP unless they're going for multi-provider redundancy

[dodobirdlord]

Tired and bad meme is tired and bad. Why would prior evidence of Google shutting down things that are not anything like GCP suggest that Google would shut down things that are like GCP?

[eitland]

I don't think it will happen, but the fact that a lot of smart people are actually considering this is scary.

It is all their own fault though I think: They worked long and hard to build that reputation.

[djohnston]

How are they different? It's another Google product failing to meet the goals leadership has established.

[dodobirdlord]

Most of the google products that have been shut down that HN loves to harp about were shut down not because they failed to reach some sort of goal, but because they had no goals at all. They are by and large the work of a few people and nobody felt like maintaining them. The one exception is Google+, which notably unlike Google Cloud didn't require spending billions of dollars on datacenters and undersea cables, or on hiring/diverting thousands and thousands of engineers. Nor did it require building a third-party partner ecosystem and signing long term contracts with deprecation windows. Nor did it have a projected total market revenue larger than all digital advertising.

[Pyxl101]

There was an article on HN about how Google leaders have considered shutting down GCP if it doesn't become a market leader: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21815260

[dodobirdlord]

There wasn't, i.e. the thread existed, but the purported discussion of shutting down GCP did not occur as written. But don't take my word for it, take the word of Corey Quinn, the AWS consultant who originally invented the meme that Google might someday shut down GCP.

https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/google-cloud-is-probably-...

[freehunter]

To Google, the name "Google Cloud" includes GSuite. GCP (the AWS/Azure competitor) is far, far less.

[mr_toad]

Microsoft books every SQL server license and Office 365 install as cloud revenue.

[AzzieElbab]

Source?

[swarnie_]

Highlights from fiscal year 2019 compared with fiscal year 2018 included:

Commercial cloud revenue, which includes Microsoft Office 365 Commercial, Microsoft Azure, the commercial portion of LinkedIn, Microsoft Dynamics 365, and other commercial cloud properties, increased 43% to $38.1 billion.

https://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar19/index.html

[AzzieElbab]

Thanks

[skywhopper]

It’s not really about “will they shut it down?” But rather, will Google continue to invest heavily in GCP if it’s not gaining traction at the pace they want it to? Maybe they’ll find better ways to spend that money. Microsoft got out of the mobile phone business, which seems ludicrous to me, but they weren’t gaining traction, so...

[Patatarte]

Do you work for GCP?

[scarface74]

You’ve just kind of described the problem with GCP. It doesn’t matter how technically good they are if they don’t have good Enterprise support and they have no ability to meet the enterprise customer where they are.

The first step of a major cloud migration is often a combination of hybrid solutions and lift and shifts.

Revenue is inconsequential. What is there profit? Cloud is profitable for AWS and MS. We don’t know what the margins are for GCP.

[crazygringo]

I don't know what you're talking about. By all accounts, GCP enterprise support is perfectly fine. Why do you think it isn't? Again, it's not consumer Gmail or YouTube accounts. Major companies wouldn't be signing contracts with them if they didn't.

And in what universe is revenue inconsequential? Profit comes whenever you want to stop investing in growing. There is zero reason to believe that Google will be unable to turn a profit off GCP whenever it decides to. Particularly given that it was building datacenters for Search before AWS even existed.

[AzzieElbab]

The perception comes from consumer products.

[scarface74]

Profit comes whenever your costs are less than your revenue.

GCP and Google are completely different. Nothing except a few inconsequential internal Google apps run on GCP.

Building servers and knowing how to address the needs of the enterprise are completely orthogonal.

Sorry the only citation I have is a podcast.

https://overcast.fm/+RWDUSvtD8