> I get the feeling that anything about GCP could change or disappear at any time for any reason and I as the customer is left to react to these changes.
Google is very committed to GCP and you see it in their work. Much like Amazon, they have a huge sum of computing capacity they aren't always using. It's an obvious business play.
But what's more, it's become the basis of differentiating their mobile platform. Google is trying to develop and sell-for-cheap the tools to make really good mobile apps (e.g., Firebase) to try and shore up the app ecosystem of their platform.
Given that a lot of the things they offer are 3rd gen variants of their core tech for developing things internally, it seems fairly reasonable to assume they're in this for the long haul.
It's a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption and a risk to take on. There are really compelling things about GCP not even mentioned in the article but I'm not sure if Google's got enough skin in the game to warrant me predicating my infrastructure on it without deep pricing incentives.
Digital Ocean and AWS are dedicated to continuing this line of business and keeping those customers addicted. Google is conducting another large and expensive moon shot which fine since it's part of their DNA.
They've been in the business for 8 years with steady progress. What's more, their container-based solution is also an open source platform that runs competently on Azure and AWS.
I'm not sure you can say it is an expensive moonshot at this point.
I'm not using them, myself, but I wouldn't consider that aspect of the risk substantial given the fact that I could erect identical infrastructure on AWS in the worst case scenario. And I have had to plan exit scenarios from AWS because ultimately they're a single vendor with arbitrary control over their platform, as well.
Not enough skin in the game? They're bringing an additional 10 datacenters online in 2017 and they just opened an additional 2 in 2016. Building that many data centers costs Billions. If that's not having "skin in the game" I don't know what is.
Google is very committed to GCP and you see it in their work. Much like Amazon, they have a huge sum of computing capacity they aren't always using. It's an obvious business play.
But what's more, it's become the basis of differentiating their mobile platform. Google is trying to develop and sell-for-cheap the tools to make really good mobile apps (e.g., Firebase) to try and shore up the app ecosystem of their platform.
Given that a lot of the things they offer are 3rd gen variants of their core tech for developing things internally, it seems fairly reasonable to assume they're in this for the long haul.