Google App Engine Reviews

We use Google App Engine entirely to deploy all our user interface applications, especially the applications built on top of React, ReactJS, and VueJS, which we bundle as a package and deploy as part of Google App Engine. We use it for developing and hosting web applications. We have used Google App Engine as a serverless platform and for the scalable backend deployments.

Regarding integration, for this portal, there are many microservices running behind Google Cloud, specifically Google Cloud Run and Google Cloud Kubernetes Engine (GKE). To connect Google Cloud Kubernetes Engine and Google Cloud Run, we enable VPC endpoints, and based on that, using VPC endpoints for internal communication between services, Google App Engine is capable of connecting to Kubernetes Engine to invoke all the APIs of the microservices deployed over there.

What I find most beneficial about Google App Engine is that we do not need to manage it since it's a fully managed serverless platform, allowing us to spend more time on development rather than managing and maintaining configurations. It has an automatic scaling mechanism that is very helpful in terms of scaling when new customers keep getting added. It is very cost-effective since it's a pay-as-you-go service, so we do not have to pay when we are not using it. It also focuses on more developer productivity since Google App Engine provides users with a simple user interface for developers to handle things faster.

With the automatic scalability feature of Google App Engine, it has helped our application handle variable workloads efficiently. For example, we deployed a supply chain tech analytics web portal as part of Google App Engine, where the user count was around 200 users concurrently hitting the application. When the user base grew from 200 to 700 during Black Friday, we didn't need to make any changes. Since we had already enabled Google App Engine automatic scaling, all our portals were being used by customers without downtime, and we received positive feedback.

The real-time logging feature helps us in monitoring and improving app performance with a simple UI interface where we can do monitoring and diagnostics. If there are any bottlenecks and debugging issues, they provide filters and sorting mechanisms on the same screen, allowing us to filter different types of errors. Furthermore, it connects the monitoring services to Google's notification service, so whenever there is an issue in Google App Engine, all events get notified via the notification service.

I assess the global reach and redundancy capabilities of Google App Engine as strong because currently we expose it in multiple regions including European Central, US East, and Asia Pacific regions. Across these global regions, we have extended and deployed the same Google App Engine services, enabling us to reach our platforms globally. The dynamic routing capabilities, along with its ability to handle firewalls and latencies, allow us to manage global reach when we host Google App Engine.

Regarding improvements, one enhancement for Google App Engine would be enabling some sort of CICD via CloudFormation or Terraform. This would allow DevOps engineers to configure Google App Engine for no-code deployments or a one-click deployment process for every customer deployment. Currently, we have to use Google CLI and utilize Google App CLI SDKs for deployment. If options were available to enable these SDKs for Terraform and CloudFormation, it would be more helpful for executing one-click deployments.

Another feature that would be beneficial in Google App Engine is the ability to easily white label custom domains. Google App Engine provides Google's own domain link by default, but customers often prefer something under their company name. The option to add custom domains would be a valuable advantage for customers.

I have been working with Google App Engine for approximately 5 to 6 years.

Since we are an enterprise customer, having an enterprise account makes it quite easy for us to quickly connect with the Google support team. They initiate immediate responses whenever we raise a request on the support channel through chat, phone calls, or online meetings. They route us toward the appropriate team handling Google App Engine or other services, so when there is an issue, the respective team connects and provides support. Overall, Google support is quite good and responsible, resolving issues on time.

On a scale of 1 to 10 for tech support, I would give it a nine out of 10.

Before using Google App Engine, I worked with Azure VMs, where costs were significantly higher. When we transitioned to Google App Engine, the costs drastically reduced. Similarly, other services offered by Azure and AWS also have their cloud storage, with AWS providing CloudFront with S3 and Amplify. However, Google App Engine stands out as it not only supports deploying web applications but is also capable of serverless mechanisms, which is a unique selling point compared to other competitors.

The initial setup of the Google environment with Google App Engine is fully managed and serverless, capable of handling traffic and traffic fluctuations efficiently compared to other platforms such as Azure or AWS, where we have to configure all the infrastructure. Google App Engine takes care of all traffic fluctuations and provides seamless integrations, making it a powerful option compared to other services offered by other cloud platforms.

Earlier we deployed the same application on a VM and were paying a fixed cost of around $700 to $800 a month for a simple small instance VM. Once we deployed this same application as part of Google App Engine, the cost drastically reduced to just $120 for the small instance we use for our development. This difference in monthly costs demonstrates a significant improvement for our company, allowing us to handle billing more effectively.

Given my experience with Google technologies, I recommend that when someone focuses on their business and products, instead of spending a lot of time on deployments and management, they should opt for Google App Engine. This allows them to concentrate on their business use cases and boost revenue, rather than wasting time managing and monitoring cloud services.

I did not purchase Google App Engine through the AWS Marketplace; we directly opened a Google Cloud account and started using Google App Engine.

Overall, I rate Google App Engine a nine out of 10.

In my current company, my client is completely based on Google. They are using their domain from Google and mixing Google Cloud with AWS Cloud. When it comes to deploying our microservices or REST APIs over the cloud, I develop APIs and portals for the Service Request Development (SRD) team. There are a lot of SRD personnel involved, possibly around 1K users, with many leaders using the services globally due to my engagement with a major IT giant.

The features of Google App Engine are very valuable, as it is the same as in AWS, Beanstalk, and in Azure, where it operates similarly. Google App Engine is a complete PaaS, platform as a service. Here, we are provided two types of scaling; if we are on a standard use case, we are provided basic and automatic and manual options, and if we are on flexible users, we have access to all three types. Google App Engine is fully managed, meaning users don't need to manage resources themselves; however, management is required and is handled by Google. For the standard environment, there are two variants: the standard and the flexible environment. The standard environment works a sandbox, whereas in the flexible environment, when we click on create, it starts its VM and initializes its virtual disk and resources, which we can access using the VM. In the case of the standard environment, we can't access all the other resources.

I've noticed measurable benefits and return on investment by choosing Google App Engine. The deployment process is managed by Google, allowing me to focus on selecting our language and uploading our code, while Google manages everything else—including the provision of the VPC for flexible deployments. If choosing the flexible option, it automatically creates a VPC, whereas for standard, no VPC is provided. Essentially, I only need to make minimal choices regarding regions; other than that, I focus solely on how my code operates.

The areas of Google App Engine that I would to improve or enhance include its allowance for complete end-to-end deployment and scalability; however, it is manageable only for a few languages. For instance, it doesn't support languages C and C++, only basic support for Node.js, Java, and Ruby. It's not a comprehensive solution for all scenarios. Moreover, the security feature is based on IAM roles, but it should ideally be based on Active Directory (AD) roles. For IAM-based roles, we need to add the proper users and provide all security permissions manually. In an AD-based model, we would simply add users to a specific group, and all permissions would be inherited.

I worked with Google App Engine for almost 4 years.

I would rate the stability of Google App Engine a perfect 10 out of 10, as it is completely managed by Google. It was launched in 2008 at a time when cloud computing was still a novel idea, and since then it has emerged as a prominent player in IT. However, unforeseen circumstances, such as network issues and latency, could affect perceived stability, but overall, it remains highly reliable.

For scalability, I would rate it 9.5 out of 10, as the scalability feature provides automatic, basic, and manual options. With automatic scaling, Google Cloud handles the scaling process, which leads to my high rating. However, basic scaling is limited and may struggle under heavy requests, especially if it requires intensive database or service calls. The manual scaling option depends entirely on the user. In automatic scalability, if 10 is the highest customization, I stand by my 9.5 rating since some user input is required for debugging errors.

Technical support for Google App Engine is efficient and offers a brilliant solution. I would rate it around 9.5 for availability, although occasional glitches and outages can occur due to unfortunate circumstances that are sometimes beyond our control.

Positive

Before using Google App Engine, we needed to deploy our own servers. We faced challenges as demand fluctuated based on seasonal trends, requiring us to get additional resources and integrate them, which ultimately ended up being a costly process.

I would rate the initial setup of Google App Engine around a bit lower than medium, as it's not too easy nor overly complex. This setup requires basic intermediary skills to add the necessary components, including package utilization, and for Node.js, the use of server.js and app.yaml files, along with their configurations. It's important to note that if we create multiple services, only one Google App Engine will run, but we can deploy multiple services, which can be defined in app.yaml files. Additionally, transitioning from standard to flexible modes requires specifying the deployment type, so a person should have sufficient knowledge of this. CLI knowledge to work with commands and specific features is also necessary.

For managing Google App Engine, there is a team of around 5 to 7 people globally charged with addressing security issues, vulnerabilities, and logging. They must manage any scenarios where someone deploys faulty code that could lead to production downtime, as even one minute of downtime can cost the employer or the company significantly, impacting all stakeholders involved.

The pricing of Google App Engine largely depends on the features chosen; if we opt for the standard edition, it is less expensive, while the flexible option incurs more costs due to always having an instance running. The pricing can vary from user to user and their specific applications. Overall, I would rate the pricing around 7.5 out of 10.

I haven't evaluated other options before choosing Google App Engine. I graduated with a specialization in cloud computing, where I also explored AWS, GCP, and IBM Cloud. In fact, I achieved the IBM Cloud Mastery Award in 2019 on my first attempt, and in 2020, I earned numerous certifications through Quick Labs for AWS and GCP.

I would rate Google App Engine as a 9 out of 10, as there is an instance running with the flexible solution. If no requests are coming in, it may continuously run without activity, which incurs costs. However, if it is actively serving requests, it produces instant results. The standard edition can scale to zero when idle, which is acceptable, but any incoming requests will require time to set up.

I am open to new technologies, and I'm constantly enhancing my skills and knowledge. I always seek to learn more and embrace new opportunities.

I have been using Google App Engine with different projects, utilizing both standard and flexible environments. Our customer has a web application and chose Google App Engine because they wanted to focus on code and connections without managing infrastructure. The application is an internal sales platform for a company similar to Salesforce. Employees log into the web application to input details about products they have sold to end users, tracking their monthly sales targets. This web app was created using Google App Engine specifically for internal usage.

The most valuable feature of Google App Engine is that developers don't need to maintain servers. It automatically scales according to traffic, with users setting minimum and maximum instances. The platform calculates CPU usage, traffic, and memory consumption automatically. When CPU usage exceeds 70%, Google App Engine automatically adds an instance, and when utilization decreases, it scales back down to minimum instances.

Google App Engine supports popular programming languages such as Ruby, Java, Python, and Node.js. While the standard environment doesn't allow custom runtime, the flexible environment provides this option, enabling SSH access to containers for modifications and troubleshooting. The platform allows seamless integration with different services, including SQL databases whether on-premises, Cloud SQL, or on other cloud providers such as AWS or Azure.

The automatic workload management significantly reduces operational work. If an instance isn't functioning properly, Google App Engine automatically removes it and creates a new one. The platform includes CPU throttling to maintain constant CPU usage and prevent CPU or memory leakages. It also automatically generates and manages logs through STDERR or STDOUT, making monitoring more efficient compared to other platforms that require installing monitoring agents.

Google App Engine includes domain management and firewall rules for access control, allowing users to restrict traffic effectively. This security feature helps control which requests can reach the application, providing better traffic management than many other resources.

The error logging system in Google App Engine could be enhanced. While there are troubleshooting documents with Google-defined error logs, identifying the exact root cause can be challenging. Often, issues must be escalated through support to product engineering teams who access internal logs for resolution. Increasing the visibility of logging would help users identify issues more easily.

Regarding runtimes, the validity period limitations can be problematic. When companies use legacy applications, migrating to new versions requires significant code changes and isn't always a simple lift-and-shift operation. Google App Engine should consider continuing to provide security patches for legacy applications, especially for customers with substantial billing.

The manual scaling feature needs improvement, as it isn't available for all runtimes. Adding this capability across all runtimes would be beneficial for controlling instance scaling within specific parameters.

The main challenge with Google App Engine is the lack of UI deployment options, requiring deployment through Cloud Shell. This can be difficult for new users. Additionally, each project can only have one Google App Engine instance, and it must be deployed in a single region. Once a region is selected, it cannot be changed without deleting the project or creating a new one. Having the option to deploy applications across multiple regions would be beneficial for users.

The stability of Google App Engine has been quite good overall. There was an outage in one region during June or July which affected application performance, but apart from that incident, the service has performed well during the past year and a half of usage.

Support varies based on package level - standard, enhanced, and platinum. Platinum customers receive top-priority support with responses within one hour and 15 minutes for P1 cases, including immediate team engagement and environment analysis. Gold support provides good service through L2 and L3 teams, while standard support typically handles L2 issues with slower response times.

The tiered support system could be improved, particularly for standard support customers. Currently, resolution times vary significantly: platinum might take two days, gold five days, and silver 12-15 days. Reducing these timeframes could attract more small businesses to Google Cloud Platform. A more balanced approach to technical support across all tiers would benefit the platform's growth.

The return on investment has been substantial. Google App Engine offers discounts for high resource utilization, similar to committed use discounts for Compute Engine. The platform helps reduce server costs by providing suggestions for optimal resource allocation. Through consultation with Google Cloud Platform customer engineers about server requirements, our customer has achieved significant cost savings.

Google App Engine is affordable compared to other available platforms. The pricing structure is reasonable and not overrated.

When deploying Google App Engine, be aware that it must be done through Cloud Shell as there is no UI option. Each project can only have one Google App Engine instance, and it must be deployed in a single region without the ability to change regions afterward. This limitation requires either deleting the project or creating a new one to change regions. Based on my experience, I rate Google App Engine 9 out of 10.

I am currently working in a governance team where we have created several scripts. We have developed a front end and a back end for people working with information security, along with some billing portals. All projects have been deployed on Google App Engine. We are using Cloud Scheduler for scheduling various scripts. Multiple frameworks are involved, with Python consistently used for back end development and React for front end, while deployment occurs through Google App Engine.

What I appreciate most about Google App Engine is that the deployment is significantly easier compared to a conventional Linux platform. Creating a CI/CD pipeline works seamlessly. Connecting to the command line is also an excellent feature.

Google App Engine's usage is conventionally more straightforward than normal Linux hosting that we use.

I cannot currently recall anything that could be improved in Google App Engine because it is already functioning effectively. It is more user-friendly than any other platform I have used so far.

I have not yet used the real-time logging feature.

I am working with Capgemini and have been engaged with the organization for the past three and a half years.

We are using the automatic scalability feature. Currently, I do not see it from a broader perspective. We have a confined team of around 40 to 45 people working for information security. Scalability is not a significant constraint as it is not available for common users. I have not delved deeply into this aspect.

I have not encountered many instances requiring support, but when we did, representatives were readily available. There is an escalation team available for any incidents and support. Many times, callback is not required as issues can be resolved through chat support itself. The support service is very good.

Positive

I previously used different solutions. For an extended period, we used conventional Linux platform and Amazon Web Services. When we encountered Google Cloud Platform, it proved to be more useful and efficient than any other platform we had previously used.

I would absolutely recommend this product to other people.

Regarding Google App Engine, I feel very flexible working with it, so I do not have specific advice at this time. There is a research team working on making it more efficient, so I rely upon that.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Google App Engine a 9.

The usual use cases for Google App Engine that I work with are mostly web applications.

The most valuable features of Google App Engine that I have found are scalability. If your applications are purely internal, we don't need to have any instance up and running, and then whenever we actually get the request, instances should start. I find this valuable in terms of saving costs.

The automatic scalability feature of Google App Engine has helped me handle variable workloads by allowing applications to go to zero scale when there are no online users, such as during night time when there might be no active users. This helps save costs for those few hours.

The seamless integration of Google App Engine with other Google Cloud services has enhanced my application capabilities by allowing us to trigger Cloud Jobs from App Engine and some cloud functions, as handling messages through Pub/Sub. We also have third-party application integrations but mostly stick to Google services such as calling cloud function endpoints or Cloud Jobs and Pub/Sub, and sometimes BigQuery and Cloud SQL.

The fully managed serverless solution of Google App Engine has helped streamline my development process by reducing DevOps efforts; we have used a fully automated deployment process.

I have used Google App Engine's real-time logging feature, and we have alert systems in place for crashes from the DB side or any file uploads, logging those events and sending alerts through GCP.

Real-time logging has assisted me in monitoring and improving application performance by allowing us to identify slowness in communication for different services by analyzing logs of connection points and execution times between logs, which helps to identify network latency.

The benefits I have seen from working with Google App Engine include its ease of use and the ability to deploy it either as code or as a Docker image, making it quite easy.

The areas of Google App Engine I would to see improved or enhanced in the future include expanding inbuilt support for more programming languages than the current limited options such as Python, Go, and Node, ideally adding support for languages such as Java.

I have been working with Google App Engine for around 1 and 1/2 years, and overall with GCPs and the Cloud, I'm working around 4 years.

I would grade the technical support for Google App Engine an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10, as in the entire 3 years, we faced only one issue related to the network in Europe, which was resolved quickly within an hour, indicating pretty good support.

Positive

My impression of the initial setup with Google App Engine is that it's pretty straightforward. When I started for the very first time, I simply put code in a folder, wrote a config file, and ran the GAE deploy command, and it was done.

As for return on investment, I am currently working for customers, so while there is a return, I don't have precise figures on how much.

I would assess the global reach and redundancy capabilities of Google App Engine in terms of performance and reliability as mostly bounded to a specific reason, particularly in Europe, though we have one application deployed in different regions such as Europe and the US.

My impression of the pricing of Google App Engine is that it's very cheaper than traditional applications. If you deploy any application on traditional servers running 24 hours, you'll find that App Engine significantly reduces costs and helps in scalability.

I work with different GCP products, and as a GCP architect, I'm well-versed with various other services of GCP as well.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Google App Engine a 9.

I used Google App Engine about 10 months ago. We used it to deploy frontend services and backend services. We deployed through Google App Engine using both the standard environment and the flexible environment for different end services.

Regarding integration capabilities, there were Google credentials features that made it easy to use other services from Google, such as Pub/Sub messaging service and other functionalities, which were very tightly integrated. I did not have to think about the authentication between the services as it was seamless, and I did not have to do any extra work to get the authentication part working.

We were using approximately five or six services with Google App Engine, including three backend services and a couple of frontend services. Some of them used Google's Pub/Sub messaging service and Google's Maps APIs.

What I really appreciated about Google App Engine was how simple it was to spin up new services. It took care of most tasks that would typically require manual setup when configuring a server. It functioned almost as a serverless solution.

Another beneficial aspect was the ease of creating new versions of the application. If I had a production version and wanted to experiment with something else, it was straightforward to create a new version from the command line, deploy it on Google App Engine, and use it as a different environment.

The auto-scaling feature that Google App Engine provides was particularly useful as we never had to manage how the app was scaling. We never experienced any downtimes, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the scaling capability.

The auto-scaling feature helped us significantly in our fast-paced environment where the number of users was increasing rapidly. We could improve latency for users in two ways: optimizing the application code ourselves, which we did when possible, and allowing Google to scale our services as needed. This helped us focus on fixing bugs and adding new features rather than deep optimizations.

Operationally, it was efficient because we could easily spin up new versions to demonstrate new functionality without modifying the original environment. Not having to maintain the server ourselves or worry about scaling were valuable benefits we appreciated.

While integrating Google App Engine with other services, I don't recall any specific challenges. The main drawback with Google App Engine's standard environment was its restrictions. We could not work with file systems, run shell scripts from the environment, or use WebSockets. These issues could be resolved using the Flex environment, but that increased the cost.

The Flex environment requires one service instance to always be running, which further increases the service cost. It would be beneficial if Flex services could scale down to zero instances during periods of no traffic. This would solve many issues where we had to make compromises because we didn't want to maintain a constantly running instance while still needing the flexibility of WebSockets or low-level system APIs that weren't available in the standard environment.

Though I have experience with AWS, it's not comparable as I only used EC2 services, where you manage your own VM independently.

I worked with Google App Engine for approximately three years.

Regarding technical support from Google, I reached out once concerning billing when we noticed an unexpected significant increase in our costs. The issue was resolved by Google as it was due to some misconfiguration on our side.

Once everything is configured, Google App Engine requires minimal maintenance. The only maintenance we needed to perform was upgrading from Python 2.7 after it was discontinued, which was expected with any technology.

The auto-scaling capability of Google App Engine proved extremely useful as we never had to manage how the app was scaling. We never experienced any downtimes, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the scaling system.

I reached out to Google's technical support once regarding a billing issue when we noticed an unexpected significant increase in our costs. The issue was resolved as it was due to some misconfiguration on our side.

Positive

Though I have experience with AWS, it's not comparable as I only used EC2 services, where you manage your own VM independently.

When I joined the company, Google App Engine was already set up. However, I did spin up new services during my tenure, which was straightforward and simple. Creating a service on Google App Engine was uncomplicated.

One limitation I noticed was that when creating new versions of applications in Google App Engine, while it was easy to create different environments or test new features, attaching external domain names to these versions wasn't possible. External domain names could only be attached to the promoted main version marked in Google App Engine.

Operationally, it was efficient for us because we could easily spin up new versions to demonstrate new functionality without modifying the original environment. Not having to maintain the server ourselves or worry about scaling were valuable benefits we appreciated.

Google App Engine's pricing seemed reasonable to my employer. However, I cannot make comparisons as I don't have experience with other managed services.

For organizations looking to deploy quickly without focusing on scaling and who have an adequate budget, I would recommend Google App Engine. However, for those requiring extensive control over low-level APIs and environment management, it might not be the ideal choice. In such cases, managed VMs on Google App Engine or AWS would be more suitable, not specifically because of the provider but based on specific requirements.

I have not worked on any AI projects or AI-driven initiatives within Google App Engine. When I was using it approximately 10 months ago, AI features weren't as prevalent as they are now. We utilized Google's BigQuery extensively for data analysis, but not for AI features.

We had around 1,000 users at peak, though I don't have exact numbers as I didn't have access to analytics. Our development team was small, with approximately six or seven developers at peak.

I rate Google App Engine 8 out of 10.

My current use case for Google App Engine is for a business, an industrial business application.

The functions and features of Google App Engine that I have found most valuable are that it is serverless, and the learning curve is easy to follow.

When comparing Google App Engine with AWS, I get a solution directly in Google App Engine. I deploy a Python script, put the HTML files and the database in place. With AWS, I tried to understand it once and had to manage numerous components, which was overwhelming.

The main benefits I get from Google App Engine are that it allows me to deploy a web app very simply.

I appreciate Google App Engine. The challenge I encounter is that some clients don't use it because Google is very unstable with their products. Google has terminated many promising products in the past, and some clients have stated, 'This is from Google, we don't trust it because Google can change their mind any day.' They would be left stranded despite having a wind-down period.

The performance aspect of Google App Engine was satisfactory and worked effectively.

Though it was not a huge application distributed over 500 sites, what we had implemented worked effectively.

I have been working with Google App Engine for about eight years.

The initial setup for Google App Engine is approximately halfway straightforward because I have to set up the whole environment in Python and connect in Linux for my local environment with the cloud. I need to synchronize all of that, which isn't straightforward. Once it is working, it functions properly, but the initial setup process requires effort.

The stability of Google App Engine was perfectly stable, with no complaints.

I have not utilized the automation scalability feature of Google App Engine.

I could find all the solutions I needed on Google or Stack Exchange, so that was not an issue. Support is all automated. I never needed to speak to an agent, fortunately. All questions were answered via the portals.

Positive

It is easy to integrate Google App Engine with other Google Cloud solutions, especially with the database Firebase.

Once the IT department learns that they can trust Gmail, Workspace, and similar services, there remains hesitation when they discover the application runs on Google App Engine, leading them to decline its use.

I would recommend Google App Engine to others.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate Google App Engine a seven out of ten.

My usual use case for Google App Engine is related to SaaS applications where we create applications. For this purpose, we needed Google App Engine. We had concluded between AWS, Google GCP, and Microsoft Azure. At that particular time, we decided to use GCP because of the cost effectiveness and the support. We had a tie-up with Google for that particular application.

The scalability impacts my customer's experience with Google App Engine because our system, which we designed, is microservice-based and must be scalable. We are handling around billions of data, so if the load is not scalable, then it cannot take the load we expected. We are scaling accordingly; when the CPU is already 60% full, we scale to another CPU on other Google App Engines. According to that configuration, we have around 16 to 70 systems for per single use instances.

I found that Google App Engine's features and capabilities, specifically its scalability, are very valuable and cost-effective.

I'm impressed with the auto scaling feature of Google App Engine. It performs exceptionally while being cost-effective with their charges, which makes it better for our usage.

There are two versions of Google App Engine: flexible and standard versions. I think they can improve by having only one version. The advanced version has better features, better scalability, and better performance, but it costs more. Instead of having both versions, they should have one system with standard pricing.

I would prefer to have only the advanced version from Google App Engine instead of two systems.

I have worked with Google App Engine for around eight years.

We didn't face any challenges while integrating Google App Engine because we were already experienced, and everything was well documented. When we faced issues, we contacted Google support, and they resolved them since we have gold tier Google support.

Google App Engine is generally stable, with very rare instances of instability.

Stability is important for my customers with Google App Engine, though they don't use it extensively. If there are issues, they are understanding as long as they are informed beforehand. They are comfortable if issues are fixed within one or two hours.

Our system is designed with microservices and must be scalable to handle billions of data points. If the load isn't scalable, it cannot handle our expected requirements. We implement scaling when CPU usage reaches 60%, expanding to additional CPUs on other Google App Engines. We maintain between 16 to 70 systems per single use instance.

The customer service is excellent and very responsive. If I generate an urgent request, they can respond with a call within the next hour.

Positive

The initial setup of Google App Engine is extremely simple, rating at nine out of ten. The documentation provides comprehensive guidance.

They provide commands for deployment, setup, and everything else, making it worry-free for users.

The first-time deployment took around four to five days as we had to set up all applications and scripts. After the initial setup, subsequent deployments take only five to 10 minutes since everything is already configured. We can deploy through commands or generate scripts through CI/CD pipelines.

We have a 15-member team, but only three or four senior members, including myself and two others, are involved in handling deployments.

My customers didn't share any details about the return on investment. They did not notice any ROI in terms of cost saving, time saving, or resource saving. They haven't measured any return on investment.

Compared to competitors, I would rate the pricing of Google App Engine as 8.5 out of 10. The pricing is the lowest in its category, though it could be reduced further since some features aren't always utilized.

I rate Google App Engine's technical support as nine out of ten.

Currently, over 200 of our customers are using Google App Engine. Our customers are primarily schools, ranging from 10,000 to 80,000 students. We even had Pepsi as our client.

Our customer base varies in size from small to large organizations across all three categories.

Overall, I give Google App Engine a rating of nine out of ten.

Neutral

My primary use case for Google App Engine is within the finance industry, dealing with enterprise-scale businesses.

I have very specialized experts, and some of the valuable features are access to the entire Google suite of products, which allows selling other analytics alongside, such as Vertex AI. The integration with Google's suite allows me to offer a comprehensive service to my enterprise clients.

As a Google Premier Partner, the support is fantastic. Google invests in companies with technical expertise, offering connections to enterprise clients and technical support for their products. The ecosystem is quite robust.

Positive

The initial setup is complex as it is customized based on different clients, and it can range from one to three years, requiring niche-specific technical resources.

About sixty people are involved in deploying this kind of product. Roles involved include solution architects and technical consultants with certifications and expertise in Google App Engine.

I believe it is reasonably priced. I've never heard anyone express that the licenses are too expensive.

There are three basic cloud competitors: Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, and Google Cloud Platform (GCP).

Overall, I would rate Google App Engine a nine out of ten. Google invests heavily in its different tools, making them state-of-the-art, with competitive pricing. My good relationship as partners allows me to offer favorable prices and receive a lot of technical support.