Google Cloud Reviews

We are migrating some of our application workloads from an on-premise system to Google Cloud using Kubernetes.

Google Cloud's most valuable attribute is its capability for on-demand auto-scaling, and it also simplifies numerous intricate tasks for its users.

The price of the solution could be more transparent.

I have used Google Cloud within the last 12 months.

I rate the stability of Google Cloud a nine out of ten.

I rate the scalability of Google Cloud a seven out of ten.

I have not used the support from Google Cloud.

The initial setup of Google Cloud is straightforward. However, the migration of workload is complex.

We approached Google Cloud with certain cost assumptions but were surprised to find that our actual expenses were higher than expected. Initially, we had anticipated spending a set amount on the solution, but in reality, we ended up spending more than that. It would be helpful to have greater transparency and educational documentation on the cost-related aspects of Google Cloud.

My advice to others wanting to use this solution should have a migration strategy and there are other solutions on the market with similar features. User education is critical to be successful with the solution.

One of the challenges when it comes to Google Cloud is how to familiarize traditional Java developers, working database administrators, or data engineers with its offerings. The question is how to teach them to use it effectively and ensure that it functions properly. If the education is successful, Google Cloud can be a fantastic solution to work with.

I rate Google Cloud a nine out of ten.

I use Google Cloud to spin up the Kubernetes cluster.

The solution is user-friendly and easy to spin.

The security of the solution can always be improved.

I have been using the solution for two years.

Google Cloud is stable.

The scalability of Google Cloud is good.

The initial setup is straightforward. All we have to do is make our request and the cluster should be available to us.

Google Cloud offers free credit when we sign up for a minimal amount of gigabytes. The service is cheap and I give it a seven out of ten for the cost.

For learning purposes, I explored both AWS and Azure on my own, and I have also used other cloud environments. When I originally started out in the cloud industry, this was my basic approach.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

I recommend Google Cloud to others.

These cases involve infrastructure services, such as creating virtual machines in the cloud. A notable use case is creating a DR server or hosting a centralized authentication tool like Microsoft AD or an LDAP server. These should run on the cloud because it provides a high level of availability. When creating a DR, it should be on the cloud to ensure accessibility from any location and protection against various threats, such as power outages, resource constraints, viruses, hackers, or physical attacks.

Thus, DR should always be on the cloud, while production services can run on-premises. Authentication servers and critical data backups should also be on the cloud for secure and global accessibility. For instance, the backup of a primary application server should be stored on the cloud to ensure it is secure and accessible from anywhere in the world.

Every cloud provider, such as Google Cloud, offers analytics capabilities through their dashboards. These dashboards can be configured to display the data you require. Some features are available by default, while others can be created according to your needs.

Google Cloud should provide more introductory videos on how to get started. Currently, very few of these resources are available. Additionally, training on Google Cloud products is not very well streamlined. Users have to search for training, which can be quite complex.

Google Cloud needs to enhance the intuitiveness of its portal because new users might not be familiar with the workflows. To help users get acquainted with fundamental operations, Google Cloud should offer a basic introductory course free of charge. Microsoft Azure excels in this area, providing excellent documentation and free introductory learning videos.

I have been using the product for five years. 

The tool is very stable.

The tool is immensely scalable. 

The setup is somewhat intuitive but could be more user-friendly. 

For commercial purposes, users need to pay for the products they use on a workload basis, not a license basis. There are two pricing models: fixed monthly and pay-as-you-go. In the pay-as-you-go model, users pay for the resources they use, while in the fixed monthly model, they have 24/7 access to resources for a set monthly fee.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. When choosing a cloud provider, users must consider their use cases and Opex. If certain use cases can only be fulfilled by Google Cloud, then Google Cloud is the necessary choice. However, if any cloud provider can address the use cases, users should compare costs and choose the most cost-effective option. Users need to balance their requirements between use cases and costs.

Users should familiarize themselves with all the major cloud providers and their competitive features and advantages. The three major providers in India are AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud. Users should conduct a competitive analysis to understand each provider's unique features. I advise users to explore and compare these features before choosing a cloud provider.

We primarily use the solution for small applications. There are also a few web applications with Angular.

I'm very happy with Google Cloud. Everything works. For us, the solution is very easy to use. We have the right skillsets for it.

Users find it easy to work with it. 

I don't need to create an API layer since it automatically creates it for me.

It offers a real-time database, so we get updates really fast.

The Firebase database is great.

The tutorials people can find online are good.

The solution offers fair pricing.

It's pretty stable.

The solution can scale well.

It offers a simple initial setup.

There is only one issue that I have and it is when you create an account, they limit the number of accounts you can create.

The documentation could be better.

The backup needs improvement. I would prefer to do a one-piece backup solution where I can schedule backups.

It's just too complicated to migrate from one Firebase database to another. It should have been easy.

I'd like to see something like an exchange server, a managed email server, where I can handle other clients. I'd like something similar to Microsoft Exchange yet something that is like a fully managed email service.

I started using the solution maybe four years ago.

The stability has been great. I'd rate it ten out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. I've had no issues. 

It's a very scalable solution. I'd rate its ability to expand at a ten out of ten. 

We took a managed server, so it automatically scales. We've had a case where there were a thousand users streaming videos, and it all works fine.

We have 1200 users for one application. That said, we have a few applications and they all have varying amounts of users. It's likely around 1,000 users per app.

It's in our roadmap to increase usage.

I have tried Google support. I did send emails and never got a response for some of them. Compared to AWS, AWS has the best technical support and Google's is weaker.

Positive

We're also using AWS.

For Angular apps and for real-time apps and for real-time apps, Google Cloud is much better. When it comes to cleaning lambdas and small APIs, AWS is better. And the only thing I would say AWS is better is technical support. The support is 24 hours, and they're always ready to help. Google is less expensive, however.

The solution is straightforward to set up. I'd rate the ease of implementation nine out of ten. It's a cloud product. It's very easy.

Once you know what to do, the deployment is very quick and really easy. It's like one command line that you do to deploy. It only takes a minute.

We've got a repo. However, the deployments are done manually with just one command. They build locally and deploy manually.

Just one person managed the deployment process. 

Everything is implemented in-house. We did not need outside assistance. I was able to handle the deployment myself. 

Something that used to take six months might now only take two weeks. That's quite a change and a pretty good ROI.

I'd rate the pricing ten out of ten. It is an affordable product.

The cost might be $10 a month per user, which is about $300 a month in total.

We're a customer. 

I'm using a few of the services. I'm using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd advise new users to go through some tutorials. The documentation can be a bit hard to read. However, there are a lot of good tutorials out there. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution for deploying to the cloud. We have two products in production. 

Two years ago, I was working on local servers only. With this, we were able to move to the cloud.

There's a lot of investment in Google Cloud. It's a very good product now. 

The solution is stable.

It's more widely recognized and used by more people. 

They continue to invest in the cloud and it's becoming very good.

The security is getting better. 

It's easy to work with. 

We're very happy with the implementation at this time. 

The product can scale well.

I cannot recall coming across any missing features.

I've used the solution for a while now. It's been at least two years. 

The solution has been stable and reliable. I haven't dealt with bugs or glitches and have noticed any crashing or freezing. 

The solution is capable of scaling. It's not a problem. 

We have five people using it right now. 

In the future, we will increase usage.

Technical support has been helpful and responsive. We find them to be very good. 

I also have experience with Amazon as well. 

The solution has been easy to work with and easy to implement. It's not overly complex.

We have one person that is in charge of maintenance. It doesn't require much oversight. 

We have witnessed an ROI, although I do not have specifics surrounding that aspect. 

We've had licensing with Google for four years. The pricing is fine. It's not overly expensive. 

At this point, I haven't evaluated any other options. 

I am using the latest version of the solution. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

In general, the solution is great and I would rate it ten out of ten. 

We've been using it for a couple of school projects here. We have implemented it for a lot of schools with Google as our infrastructure. They're using Firebase for their data. 

It's a nice product overall. 

The solution scales well.

There's no installation process to contend with.

It is stable. 

The pricing overall is very reasonable. 

It has been secure overall. 

Overall, I'm happy with it. It's not missing any features. 

We'd like the storage to be increased. 

We've been using the solution for the last couple of years.

The stability is quite good. There are no issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability is awesome. We don't have to do the heavy lifting of maintaining the infrastructure, or anything, as everything is bundled up by Google. We just have to apply a code, and then we have to run it.

We have about 1,000 users on the product right now and plan to increase usage in the future. 

Support has been good overall. We have been satisfied with their level of assistance. 

Positive

We're using Google and Google-related products, including Kubernetes. Those are the current products here.

We were previously using other clouds for other purposes, however, in our latest project, Google Cloud met all of our needs. 

There is no installation to speak of as the product is in the cloud. 

We pay for the service yearly.

We find it to be cheaper than the competitors. They have a pay-as-you-go model.

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

It's mostly for storage of personal documents, some photos, and emails.

It's purely for personal use.

I like that it is free. It's easy to use, and it's reliable.

The Notes application could be better. Some of the email portal features can be tricky, but my mom uses it just fine, so it's probably intuitive enough.

And some of the email portal features. My mom sometimes has trouble with them, but she's not very tech-savvy, so that's understandable. The fact that she can use it at all shows that it's pretty user-friendly.

I started using Google around 2012. I've been using the cloud version.

I've never had a problem with stability so I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

I have a free business account, and my family uses it as well. It's easy to use, it works, and it is free, and we all have our own domain email addresses. It's absolutely awesome.

I'm good with the free Google account I have. It allows ten users, but I only need four or five, so it's plenty for now.

If we ever need more storage or users, it's easy to upgrade by paying a small monthly fee. It is really simple. 

Never needed it. It's always just worked perfectly.

Google Cloud was the first one I signed up for. It's always worked, it's always been free, and I haven't had a reason to look elsewhere. I don't see a need to at this point.

I've been using it for so long; it just always worked. There was no setup; it just worked.

I can stay connected with others. I have free email, free storage, free notes, and free Google apps, and I use it in conjunction with the free Linux operating system on my computer.

I don't need to pay for licensing for anything. 

I don't pay for the license. For me, it's completely free. 

Just try it out. If you like it, stick with it. If not, then look around for something else. But in my experience, if you find something that works, don't overthink it. Just use it.

It's been a great service for my needs. Overall, I would rate the product an eight out of ten because there is room for improvement. 

I use the solution to deploy .NET applications to the cloud. I deploy Web APIs and console applications.

Cloud Run is pretty helpful. Pub/Sub is also helpful.

The product must provide support for .NET. Microsoft has support for .NET because .NET is a Microsoft product. We ran into an issue when we were waiting for Google to support .NET 6. Google is slower to support .NET. It must cater more to .NET developers.

I have been using the solution for one year.

I rate the tool’s stability a nine out of ten. We rarely had issues. We run our applications on Cloud Run. We had a feature in our software where we had to generate an Excel report, and it limited us to 32 megabytes. We had to work around it.

I rate the tool’s scalability a nine out of ten. Probably 100 users are using the solution in our organization.

We were using Azure before.

The initial setup is fairly easy. We have a tool called Jenkins to deploy the product. It only takes a few minutes.

The solution is cheaper than Azure.

Google Cloud came late to the game, so it's not used as much as AWS. We can give it a try because it's easy. It’s easy to configure. It gives us another option. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.