[Robotbeat]

Just personally, I value companies who "dogfood" their products a lot more than similar companies that don't.

An example is 3D printers. Prusa makes fantastic 3D printers, and about half of the structural parts for their printers are printed on their own printers. So they have 600 of their own 3D printers printing 24/7 printing their own parts. That means they are forced to address long-term durability and reliability issues even just to ship their own product.

Because it absolutely is true that at that scale, you're usually better off just injection molding the parts, but they'd lose the high-quality signaling that yeah, their 3D printers are good enough for the company to rely on them to print their product. They also lose out on insight to things they could do to improve their own product from a usability standpoint.

[throw_nbvc1234]

I shuddered a bit when i heard that some GCP services are just external wrappers over internal systems. Feels like a bad setup for everyone involved: customers, wrapper owners and internal system owners.

[vore]

Why is this bad? The customers get the same business-critical service Google is using.

[nickmooney]

What services have you heard this about?

[rrdharan]

Bigtable is a wrapper of Bigtable; Spanner is a wrapper of Spanner, Storage is a wrapper of Storage. Not sure why the GP thinks this is a bad thing.

[throw_nbvc1234]

Was mentioned in an onsite interview i had with them a few years back. Maybe i misunderstood but it seemed that internal teams didn't integrate with the same API as external customers. Not sure the other reply means that the "wrapper" doesn't exist or the wrapper's are just named the same as the underlying service or i just misunderstood the point.

[yati]

My impression (I work at Google) is that internal interfaces to some of these services have a lot of Google-specific stuff that are hard to map to non-Google requirements.