Google Cloud Reviews

We're using Google Cloud as infrastructure for hosting MySQL, but don't use Google's Database as a Service. We manage our database ourselves. 

Google Cloud lacks some tools for database migration. I've only used MySQL and AWS in my career, so those are the only ones I can compare. AWS has a database migration tool that you can integrate with a cloud backup, so can take that backup and restore it in the AWS public cloud, but it's not the same with Google Cloud. We have to use a utility called mysqldump, which takes a long time to restore. That's a big shortcoming of Google Cloud. I don't know why they haven't thought of it.

I've been using Google Cloud Platform for about a year.

We weren't affected during the last major Google Cloud outage. We weren't in the availability zone that was affected. We haven't used it like Infrastructure as a Service. It doesn't provide you a lot unless all your services are in that particular cloud.

I've used all three major public cloud platforms that offer infrastructure as a service. It's hard to compare. If you're a bigger enterprise, it's better to use multiple public clouds so that you are not putting all your eggs in one basket.

For example, you might have an outage in Google Cloud but not in Azure or vice versa. It's the same for AWS. I can't say it won't ever happen, but all three major public clouds haven't gone down at the same time. 

I haven't had any trouble setting up Google Cloud.

I rate Google Cloud seven out of 10. 

I use Google Cloud for security purposes when sending files or any important document to others.

Google Cloud is user friendly and reliable. The most valuable feature is the security of Google Cloud.

Google Cloud would benefit from more detailed practical hands-on training especially in your mother tongue, not just English.

I have been working with Google Cloud for the past four to five months.

I am satisfied with the stability of Google Cloud.

It is easy to scale Google Cloud.

To maintain Google Cloud you have to maintain the servers as well. Sending files to a particular person, the server to server connection is mandatory. If a server is down then the file will come written back or stopped there.

Deployment of Google Cloud is straightforward and quick and does not take much time.

Pricing is high compared to other solutions. 

Comparing it to AWS Cloud, I thought Google Cloud has a better structure of cloud computing.

AWS is also a bit tricky. Google Cloud provides many different options on how to do tasks, such as sending a file. I also looked at how Google Cloud will be unstructured and structured to the different kinds of Cloud structures when sent to a particular receiver.

Prior to using Google Cloud, I was unaware of how it exactly worked. They provide you with all the information you need, including how it works, how it is structured, and how the tasks are done.

I have already recommended Google Cloud to others because they will know how their files are transferred, how their security is maintained, and what exactly the servers do in the background.

I would rate Google Cloud an 8 out of 10.

We build solutions based on the Google platform. We don't create solutions for ourselves. We create them for our customers.

We are using it specifically for our machine learning and data analytics. We are building our data solutions by using Google Cloud services. We are building the analytics dashboards and coming out with predictive analytics for education.

It is stable. It is easy to learn and very straightforward.

They need to improve the costing for predictive analytics, which is mainly related to the tools that come with AI. They also need to improve the BigQuery cost optimization and the visualization.

Their support could be faster.

I have been using this solution for the last one year.

It is stable.

It is auto-scalable. We have around 30 to 40 associates on this.

At the moment, we have around three customers who are using this particular product.

Their tech support is not so great. It takes more than 48 hours to get a response from the Google team. Their support could be faster.

It is a cloud-based solution, so there is no installation.

It has a monthly subscription. The customers pay based on the usage.

We are getting into a partnership with Google very soon. Almost our whole organization will be a Google partner. We recommend Google for every educational institution.

I would rate Google Cloud a nine 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.

My primary use case is for cloud storage but I also use it for sharing documents with people who don't use Office 365. In my case, it's mainly for personal use and less for business. I'm a customer of Google Cloud. 

The storage is good and I think it's a good cloud source. I can access information from any client and from any device. It's convenient.

There are occasionally things which are inconvenient. For example, uploading pictures or files then requires you to transfer to a different folder. Maybe there's a way to choose where a document is uploaded to and that can be done directly. 

I've been using Google Cloud for a couple of years. 

The online documentation is very good and if I need help, I go to wiki and get a decent explanation. I've never been directly in touch with support. 

Licensing is paid on a monthly basis and I think the cost is reasonable. 

I rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

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.

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.

I primarily use Google Cloud for analytics purposes. The data originates from our on-premise cloud system but is transferred to Google Cloud for analysis.

Regarding Google Cloud's data analytics features, I find the presentation of information and the ability to move and transform data to be the most valuable. As for machine learning capabilities, they are helpful, especially in detecting anomalies or outliers in our data. For instance, Google Cloud can identify unusual network behavior and provide recommendations on how to address or leverage these findings effectively.

I think one area that could be improved in Google Cloud is the customer support. Sometimes the integration process can be a bit complex due to format errors. Also having clearer documentation or a larger support team could really help users like me understand and resolve issues more effectively.

I have been using Google Cloud for the past four years. 

In terms of stability, I'd give Google Cloud a nine out of ten as it's very stable.

Google Cloud is scalable, which serves our organization's scaling needs well. We have multiple users directly interacting with the technology, and while we don't have immediate plans to increase usage, we would consider extending it in the future. 

As for scalability, I'd rate it a ten out of ten as it's more than enough for our needs.

Integrating Google Cloud with our existing systems has been. Deployment is super fast, and takes a couple of minutes.

Google Cloud has helped us save time, approximately around thirty to forty percent.

Google Cloud is on the expensive side for us. I don't have exact figures on the cost per year or month.

I haven't used Google Cloud for AI projects personally. But I have utilized Google AI for optimizing Google Ads campaigns. It's an automated machine learning model that uses data from websites to understand customer behavior and improve marketing strategies for better results like increasing clicks or purchases. 

My advice for those considering Google Cloud is to have a technical advisor due to its complexity. It's data-driven, stable, and scalable, which are strong advantages.

Overall, I would give it a rating of around an eight out of ten. 

Many companies initially consider top providers like AWS and Microsoft Azure, but most choose Google Cloud because of its offered solutions, pricing and local support.

Google Cloud has reduced our operational costs and increased efficiency. For example, deploying production applications traditionally took about a month, but with Google Cloud, it now takes only a day or two. This also extends to monitoring, allowing us to identify and address issues faster than on-premises solutions.

CloudArmor accuracy should be improved. Rules and signatures need to be more refined to detect and process attacks, accuracy of rate-limiting should be improved.

I have been working with the product for five years. 

I rate the solution's stability an eight out of ten.

The solution can be scaled horizontally and vertically. I rate it a nine out of ten for scalability. 

I rate the solution's deployment ease an eight out of ten. 

Compared to the other considering the setup and pricing, I rate it at eight out of ten.

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.