Google Cloud Reviews

The features I found most valuable are the cloud run and cloud function.

I would like for this solution to improve its user interface and documentation.

In the next release, I'd like to see information that's easier to use.

I have been using this solution for the past year.

I would rate the stability of this solution a nine, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I would rate the technical support of this solution a 10, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

Positive

Previously, we used Amazon Web Services.

I would rate the initial setup process a six, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best. If you want to configure the solution correctly, you have to use your own R&D and configure and select the correct commands. The deployment took a couple of minutes.

Regarding pricing, we are currently using free credits.

I would advise other people looking into this solution to go through the documentation thoroughly first.

I would rate this solution as a whole a seven, on a scale from one to 10, with one being the worst and 10 being the best.

I typically use the solution for creating infrastructure.

The governance feature is very good. 

There are several functions the cloud has, which are quite useful.

The virtual machines are very big. It isn't small, like Azure or AWS.

It's relatively inexpensive.

The stability is okay.

The solution can scale as well. 

The Spanish version is in beta. It needs to be farther along.

We'd like the solution to be smaller and lighter. It could be simpler. 

We'd like for some better integration from TerraForm.

The solution has okay stability, however, that said, it has a way to go before it keeps up to something like Azure. Even AWS is more stable.

The solution, as far as I can tell, is quite scalable. 

I also work with AWS and Azure. I find the stability okay with Google, and it is quite sizeable. However, AWS and Azure are more stable and lighter. 

The pricing is very good. We're happy with it for the most part.

It was cheap. I'd rate it a four out of five in terms of being affordable. They are very competitive with other clouds. 

We're a consulting company and use the infrastructure created by the cloud itself. 

I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

The solution's most valuable feature is BigQuery. We can train models for forecasting and predictions by just writing SQL queries with it. Also, GKE features work best, along with integrating Istio for monitoring purposes.

The solution's integration with Oracle could be better. We encounter issues while migrating the database from Oracle to another SQL server.

We have been using the solution for two and a half years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable and has automatic features for it. I rate its scalability a nine or ten.

The solution's technical support is good. We also contact other vendors trained in Google Cloud support in case of queries.

Positive

I rate the solution's initial setup process a seven out of ten. We need to understand its complete landscape for more straightforward implementation. Although, its deployment is faster and takes over a month to complete.

The solution has OpEx and CapEx, pricing models. Thus, the cost depends on specific use cases.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

When you push your networking, storage, and other infrastructure from on-premise to the cloud, you can let go of your on-premise real estate and shift the burden back onto the cloud vendor. Google absorbs the cost of power, cooling, management, etc.

You no longer need to spend on CapEx. Instead, you are spending on consumption, so your CapEx moves into OPEX and then on the utility. That's the generic use case for why somebody would move their workload to the cloud.

Migrating to the cloud offers multiple benefits for consumers. One is financial. Customers can let go of their data centers and put the overhead and the hassle of management onto the cloud provider.

It's easy to deploy next-generation applications on Google Cloud. Customers can also use various cloud tools to optimize their operations and generate more insights to do business much smarter.

Cloud vendors can't afford to have data centers all across the world because of the economics of scale and the size of markets. That is one reason that some customers don't get onto the cloud. 

Another issue is the applicability of local language data capturing mechanisms, which are more advanced on cloud service providers, but still there is room to grow. Also, their hybrid version isn't available in all markets worldwide, so I'm hoping that it will be released globally soon.

We've been selling Google Cloud solutions for about a year now. 

Stability has never been a question with any of the three major cloud vendors.

Cloud vendors are more scalable than any on-prem solution. There will always be an increasing demand for cloud solutions. It naturally goes up, and a lot of the other products you use will begin producing cloud versions that can only run on public clouds. 

All three cloud vendors have excellent support. I would rate them nine or 10 out of 10.

So we have a reselling on prem solutions and cloud solutions.

I rate Google Cloud eight out of 10 for ease of deployment. The complexity of deployment can vary depending on the use case and business requirements, but if it's an enterprise workload, we are looking at anywhere from four to six months.

One person could be enough to deploy and manage a cloud solution depending on how critical the workload is. It's also contingent on how much responsibility the customer or the cloud vendor takes. For example, if the cloud vendor takes maximum responsibility in a case like a software service, then the customer only has to configure, manage and run the software.

We are the ones who migrate the workloads, so we're doing the implementation, but there is always. If it's a massive workload, we might bring in third-party integrators who specialize in a particular application workload.

You get an ROI from moving workloads from on-prem to cloud, but the real return comes when your customers start taking advantage of the cloud solution's full features. The return doesn't justify the cost unless you modernize the applications.

Cost can start from less than a dollar and go up. Monthly and yearly base billing is there, but ultimately it depends on customer usage, There could be additional costs. It depends on the requirements. If a customer has some needs that aren't available on the public cloud, they'll have to procure those licenses separately.

The decision to use Google Cloud had nothing to do with its technical capabilities. We were looking at which cloud vendor had the least reach in our market, so we chose that vendor. It's hard to speak generally about the advantages and disadvantages of the different cloud platforms divorced from context.

I rate Google Cloud 10 out of 10. People have limited knowledge of cloud solutions. My advice is that for those considering migration to the cloud is to evaluate the on-prem and cloud alternatives as much as possible because you can make wrong decisions if your perspective is limited. 

I use Google Cloud for services like corporate email, data collection, Google Meet, session recording, presentation, and storing important documents in the cloud.

You can use Google Cloud tools easily, even if you know how Word, Excel, or PowerPoint works. Additionally, Google Meet is simple to use regarding configuration and recording sessions.

They could integrate artificial intelligence into the applications.

We have been using Google Cloud since 2015.

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the product’s scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup process is simple. It takes just five minutes to complete and doesn’t require a much bigger team. You should know the access ID and password to log in.

Anybody can deploy the product.

They provide user-based licensing plans. Its plan could be less expensive.

I rate Google Cloud a nine out of ten. They should work on the cost. It is not feasible for many organizations to pay 1,500 per user.

I am in the process of migrating from on-premises to the cloud.

We use it for IT infrastructure deployment and management.

The best part of Google Cloud is that it is cheaper than the competitors.

It is easy to set up, monitor, and manage.

You can just connect and start using it through a browser within a few minutes.

Monitoring and usage reporting could be improved. For example, they don't provide the CPU primary memory usage report. They do provide a CPU usage report, but not the memory. This is something that is critical for people interested in monitoring because if you are burdening the machine then you want the option of providing more RAM.

There is no graph or monitoring in the console; if it is there then I haven't found it, so it is something that takes extra time to figure out.

Google does not provide free support and at the least, email support should be available. I am not asking for free chat or telephone support, but given that we are paying to use the machine, email support should be included.

The alerts are somewhat cryptic and do not say much about what is going on.

I have been using Google Cloud for almost three years.

The stability is good.

Google Cloud is a scalable product.

The support is bad, and you have to purchase it separately. There is no free support available.

I am currently working with both Google Cloud and AWS. I am in the process of also trying to implement IBM Cloud.

It is easy to set up and up the time for provisioning depends on the type of machine that you want to set up. It will not take longer than 15 or 20 minutes if you know how to do it.

We have two or three people in the organization who set up the machines.

The support costs extra, even when it comes to email.

This is a good product, but I wouldn't immediately recommend it because there are a lot of options available. People have to choose based on their requirements and location. There is not much different, so people have to look at particular requirements, cost, and support.

I agree that cost is a factor but support should also be considered because it is needed from time to time, and Google does not provide free support. Given that we are paying for the machine, we should have to pay for costly support in addition to that.

This is a good product but I would like better monitoring, alerting, and reporting.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are using GoogleCloud for hosting a SaaS platform.  

The most valuable feature of the product is that it has a very powerful command line.  

It is difficult to say what should be improved because, obviously, they have made some major improvements in the organization of how you do things — such as the way you set up a server. Google has made a lot of effort to try and catch up to the competition in the area of ease-of-use because that would have been my one complaint: that you have got to be quite technical to understand some of the ways that things are done. Azure and Heroku are number one in ease-of-use and they make it very easy. Google has done a lot of work to alleviate that objection and to catch up with Heroku and Azure. But the people that have the most to say about the ease-of-use would be the guys using it. For the developers we have, they like the power and the control that Google gives them.  

So I can not actually answer what exactly has to improve for developers to be more satisfied at this point because they seem quite satisfied with it already. I do not get any complaints from the guys. They are the ones using it every day and I do not use it on a daily basis so I really can not comment in that sense.  

I could say that it can be easier to use for people that do not have the same level of technical skills, but even that has improved a lot with their upgrade to the user documentation.  

I have experience with Google Cloud for about two years now.  

It is extremely stable. I have no negative feedback and no complaints.  

Google Cloud is very scalable. The use of Docker and Kubernetes has really made it extremely scalable. Google's implementation of Kubernetes is excellent.  

At this stage mainly we have developers and dev-ops using the product and it is a team of about 25 guys. We could expand that at any time.  

The initial setup is somewhat more complicated than competing products. I was not directly involved in that capacity so I can not provide details. But also complexity sometimes leads to opportunity as far as customizing performance. The people who are working with the product directly like the ability to fine-tune more than they want simplicity.  

Initially, I was just doing research. I was keeping an open mind and looking at all of the possibilities. I do not think it is quite right to call it "evaluate" when you just do a feasibility study. We did take a closer look at a few solutions like Azure, Heroku, and Google Cloud. We dabbled a little bit with some of them. We eliminated Azure because we were concerned about the support for Mongo DB which is part of our technology stack. Obviously Azure has changed a lot since.  

We trimmed that group to Heroku and Google Cloud which are technically both platforms of high-quality. Heroku is easier to deal with. Using Google Cloud, you have to build a bit of experience with the product because it is not easy if you do not understand how to do things. Heroku makes it a lot easier for you.  

The reason we went with Google Cloud had to do with two things. Number one was cost, and number two is that Google supported everything we use. We had to control the costs initially, so Heroku was pretty much out the door almost immediately. It was a competitive product but it was too expensive. An end-user would not know where a platform is hosted, and they would not care. For an end-user, they go on your website or on your SaaS platform and there is no difference in the experience whether you are hosted with Google or Heroku or AWS. It makes no sense for them to worry about that. But the cost ends up being an important component of the decision for the service company.  

I think the point is that it is very difficult for companies these days to decide between Heroku, Azure and Google Cloud. They all have data centers in the right places in the UK. There is very little that differentiates any of them. Heroku obviously stands out because they are a very stable platform and they do all the hard work for you. If you do not have the expertise to go with a less expensive more labor-intensive solution, then you would go with Heroku and pay more.  

We have a development center in Manila with very experienced guys and they love Google Cloud. It gives them everything they need and everything that is required for a big, fast platform — like the ability to use clustering. I think all of the solutions support Java and ATC (Advanced Analytics Technology). But we have not had any issues since we started on Google Cloud, so we are happy with the direction we have taken.  

The lesson I learned from adopting Google Cloud is that you should do more training before you commit to it.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Google Cloud as an eight-out-of-ten. You can not have a perfect platform. There is always room for improvement and something to add.  

That rating is really because of the feedback I get from the team. I get good feedback from the guys. But it is not really fair of me to give any product a ten if I am not more intimate with it in daily use. I could just as well give it a one if I were totally ignorant of the product, but that would not mean anything.  

We primarily use the solution for our virtual machines. We put all of our software infrastructure onto virtual machines, and then we use Google as the cloud for storage. We use all of our own solutions inside and not their services so that if we did want to move to another cloud, like AWS, we could do so easily.

The initial setup is very easy.

We like that the solution is always available, and it would be simple to migrate as needed. 

We chose Google for its ease of use and value for money.

It is stable.

The solution can scale. 

I can't think of any improvements off the top of my head. 

The solution could be a bit cheaper.

I've been using the solution for five years. 

There were some glitches in the system years ago. That has since been fixed. Now, it is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It's of a very good standard. 

It is very scalable, and you need to pay for it if you want to expand. 

We've had to reach out to support in the past. I wasn't able to get help from Google directly. I found help using the user community. 

The solution is very straightforward to set up. It's not overly complex. 

The solution offers the best value for money. 

I'm just a straightforward customer. 

I am not sure if we are using any specific version at this time. 

This is a good solution. You'd get done what you need to get done. There are many alternative solutions out there, however. What people need to know is if they will get their requirements met. This is a very capable platform. It's a good product to use and offers good value for money. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten overall.