Google Cloud Reviews

We used Google Cloud for to host our automation platform.

Google Cloud performs well. 

I would like to see more code generation features that enable you to take user input in simple English and automatically convert it to code. 

I have been using Google Cloud for four years.

I rate Google Cloud eight out of 10 for stability.

I rate Google Cloud eight out of 10 for scalability. 

The IT team centrally manages the deployment and gives us access to the instance that hosts the automated platform.

I rate Google Cloud seven out of 10. It increases the efficiency of any user to have a solid technology platform. You get the advantage of auto-scaling and upgrades to the latest technology. 

Public Cloud

Google

The primary use case of this solution is for storage and document sharing.

For example, if I have a customer and they want to share a document, I can access it through Google.

Ubiquiti is what is most valuable. They have basically mimicked Microsoft, giving you the equivalent of Office 365 type of services that are available.

It's robust, and it has a wide reach in terms of office applications including storage.

It's easy to access in a public cloud environment.

Every once in a while I have trouble accessing it, but I don't know if that's a function of the Cloud, the way the Cloud is set up, or it's just something on my browser. 

Stability could be improved in terms of the Cloud in general administration. It's frustrating when companies have to deal with Cloud Administration. 

Change configuration management is an issue. I can envision customer companies that are Cloud-enabled where their biggest problem is having to keep up with the changes and managing it.

The API is constantly evolving. IP addresses are constantly changing and it's hard to keep up with all of those changes.

Typically it is being administered through IT organizations, although they have no visibility.

If you engage in a security solution through a cloud provider, you have no view, it's all faith, trust, and hope.

How do you reconcile the two, to provide the visibility, do it seamlessly, and make it easy to use?

If they could include a popup section where all of the new updates are. That would be helpful. I don't have the experience or intelligence to know what it is that they are showing, or where I can get that I might need, which would make a feature like this important.

It would like it if upon starting the browser, it tells you that it is out of date and asks if you would like to update. That would lead customers to take the optimal path as opposed to having to figure it out themselves.

There are issues with stability. There may be capacity issues at the time but it's hard to guess what the root cause is. There is no visibility.  You don't have the visibility unless you really know upfront what your problem is. Otherwise, you are left hanging.

It's scalable, but I don't plan to increase my usage. Personally, I avoid a public cloud offering system from a security perspective unless it's something a customer requires to access documents.

Prior to the public cloud, I used another solution more like a public hosting-type of service. It didn't give you the scale and the means of payment that you have with the Cloud. As an example, look at Lotus Notes, 1980 technology. There is no comparison, Google is far superior. People see the ease, simplicity, and again the Ubiquiti of the service attached to it.

The initial setup is simple. You go in there and you register. It starts with your email address and then you are done.

We provide private networks, what we call VPNs. It is the older, traditional VPN type service for our customers, which gives them security and performance metrics that you can't get from the internet.

We have a gen engine that has that interface into the cloud providers including Google.

We don't by services from Google, we are not even doing infrastructures, or platform as a service or software as a service.

We are not using this solution in my organization. We have our own internal storage for security reasons, and predominantly, we use it in-house. We call it orange, it's flex storage. It's our intranet.

We either use in-house or have exclusive arrangements with companies.

The concept of the cloud is great, you have the scale, you have the financial model, metered pay as you go, those are great, but what's worse is that it's a black box.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Public Cloud

Google

We primarily use the solution for data. For example, we use it for email and Google Docs and sheets and content of that nature. 

I find that Google Cloud is easier to understand than other options. 

I like its product offering, which is simpler to figure out and automate.

The setup is straightforward. 

It is scalable.

The solution is stable.

Technical support has been good. 

I'm still confused by the usefulness of the cloud and I'm not sure why everyone is moving there. I don't trust the act of sending my company's information to whoever knows where instead of having it safe on my own servers. 

I find it hard to download items, especially on their operating system.

The Google operating system leaves a lot to be desired. 

It does not seem to provide any virtualization whatsoever.

I've used the solution for a while. 

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

Cloud providers like Google are designed to be scalable. The issue is you are supposed to be bursting at the seams before you scale and that doesn't make much financial sense.

The customer service is very good. 

Neutral

I'm also familiar with Azure. I've used Microsoft products for ten years or so, however, I find Google to be simpler.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward and simple. 

Pricing is pretty good. However, all cloud products offer pretty close to the same pricing. 

I haven't used a lot of cloud products and haven't experimented too much with Google Cloud, beyond playing with Google Workspace. 

From what I have experienced, I would rate it seven out of ten.

The value for us is the infrastructure as we don't have to host or worry about upgrades. It eliminates capital expenditures and subsequent MNO that we would use to spend on on-prem architectures. That money is funneled towards security and connectivity provisioning. This is a better way of spending money and trying to keep up with the cloud-forward strategy that we have in Oregon.

An area of improvement would be in the of managing accounts in terms of what we are using for memory, availability, and monitoring. We want to monitor our SaaS deployment within Google to give our SOC a good idea of what's going on.

We have been using this solution for a couple of years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

This solution is worth the money we are paying. I would rate the pricing a three out of five. 

From a maintenance perspective, we have cloud architects who are working on what data can go where and what infrastructure we require from the cloud service providers. This is a team of ten. 

I would advise others considering this solution to always plan and have a good blocking service before moving anything to the cloud. It is important to complete an evaluation of sing the solution long term and to take cost provisioning, availability of services, cyber security, credibility and compliance into consideration.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We're using this solution to host all of our applications. Currently, we're in the process of migrating all the SAP servers to GCP.

There are about 2,000 people using this solution in our organization.

The performance is a valuable feature.

The price of the license could be cheaper.

We have been using this solution for a few months.

It's stable.

The scalability is good.

We pay for a monthly license.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10.

We use Google Suite of products for enterprise and we build our technology products for warehouse management systems, and transportation management systems.

We use Google Cloud for our enterprise. It is used for pretty much everything from emails to storage and to communicate everything.

Google Cloud is very light. 

It is easy to use and has a very familiar interface.

I have used Microsoft and I have used Google. I feel equally comfortable with both, but Google is lighter and it's easy to work with on your mobile devices.

Google has a lot of features that are really good. I am happy with the features that Google offers.

As far as internal communications, Microsoft is much better because of the way it is structured. I feel more comfortable with Microsoft. 

I feel that the Google product is incomplete with regard to internal communications. It is an area that needs some improvement.

The user experience could be better. Microsoft user experience is better.

The compatibility of different devices could be better because it looks different on different devices, It's not the same.

I have been with the company for seven or eight months and it has been used for a long time before that. They have been using it from the start.

I am satisfied with the stability of Google Cloud.

Google Cloud is very scalable. Many companies use Google Cloud because of its scalability.

We have more than 30,000 users in our organization who are using Google Cloud.

I have not had any issues with the technical support in the eight months I have been using Google Cloud.

The initial setup is easy. It's quite straightforward.

I am not familiar with the pricing, but I would guess that it is probably cheaper than Microsoft Suite. There are a lot of startups that use Google Cloud.

We are a Google house, and we don't use any of the Microsoft products.

Google is fantastic and I think that people should go for it. I would recommend using Google Cloud.

I would rate Google Cloud a seven out of ten.

Private Cloud

So far, I like all the features that I use with Google Cloud. I like it very much compared to the previous tool that we had.

The speed, security, and performance of Google Cloud are excellent.

Actually, our company doesn't venture out much to use all of the products and features covered under Google Cloud because we do have our own customizations when it comes to the setups for the company. We are trying to maximize our resources, the cost, and the assets, and we want to control it on our own.

The product's initial setup phase is a little bit difficult, so it is an area where improvements are required.

I have three months of experience with Google Cloud. My role in the company is as a researcher and a developer. I am an end-user of the tool.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We are working with approximately 300 users of the tool in our company.

The solution's technical support was average. I rate the technical support a six out of ten.

The technical support for Google's platforms are embedded under products, so we are meant to go for self-learning. My company does not have experience with human intervention when it comes to Google. Only self-learning is needed for the products.

Neutral

Right now, we have Google Cloud's Compute Engine and SQL Server, but we have not used the tools yet because we are diverting into self-hosting.

Previously, I worked with Microsoft products for my previous employer. All Microsoft products, including Office, servers, databases, and SQL Server.

As a new product for us, the product's initial setup phase is a little bit difficult.

The product's deployment phase took place over a month. I then deployed the virtual machine, VPC, the storage, and SQL Server. We ran it for a couple of days, and then we saw the billing and the cost. The cost is based on the products you used, CPUs, Storage, Memory, API access and bandwidth. We saw that the tool was great but very costly for us, and so we did not continue.

If one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the tool's price as an eight.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

Private Cloud

Google

The solution is used for storage for disaster recovery. It is used to store all the company data outside the company premises. It is also used for backups, AI processing, and database storage.

Some services use AI, and we use those services from Google.

The protection is good enough. We can increase the storage as we need. The global infrastructure impacts our service availability and latency positively. Some customers want their data stored in Europe. Others need it closer to where the users operate to minimize the latency and lag for accessing the data.

The price can be lowered significantly.

I have been using the solution for ten years. I am using the latest version of the solution.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is scalable. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We have five users in our organization. The users configure and deploy the tool for our customers. It is not for our internal use.

The initial setup is simple enough if we know what we are doing. After the right amount of training, it's simple. There is a learning curve, but it is not very high or steep. The time taken for deployment depends on the architecture we are deploying.

The deployment was done in-house. We are a software development company. We have in-house personnel for deployments.

It's not an upfront cost. It grows when we need it to grow and comes down when we need to scale it down. We pay per use monthly.

We also use AWS and Azure. We adapt to products based on our customers’ needs.

People who want to use the tool must analyze their specific case before they commit to a cloud platform. In some cases, one of them might be better than the other. It is not generic. It depends on the use case. Our goal is to help our customers use the service. So, the scalability doesn't help us directly. It helps our customers grow.

There are different use cases. The value for us is that we can offer cloud-agnostic services. Regardless of the customer preference, we can help them configure their cloud systems. Overall, I rate the solution an eight or nine out of ten.