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.
Programma en project manager at a consultancy with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Jun 27, 2025
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.
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.
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.
Assistant Manager at a tech vendor with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 5
May 20, 2025
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.
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.
There is limited customization because the sandbox environment restricts it. There are issues with cold starting; apps may take time to wake up if idle for a few minutes. The pricing is higher compared to alternatives like Kubernetes ( /products/kubernetes-reviews ) and Compute Engine.
The support for the Indian region is not as good as compared to the support that is offered to the regions in Europe. My company faces a lot of problems with the support team, especially when Google's technical team is not able to help us immediately when we are stuck with something related to the tool. The support of the product is an area where improvements are required. Google App Engine is a good product, and its support needs to be improved as it is a new technology that few people know about. There is a need to spread some awareness about the product while also ensuring that some online forums related to the product need to be updated with a lot of documentation related to the tool.
Pre-Sales Solution Architect Manager at Qi Network
Reseller
Jul 18, 2023
Some features of runtime don't work well in App Engine. Sometimes we must tune it ourselves or ask Google’s team to improve it. It is the most important thing. Our clients always complain about it.
The documentation is an area that could definitely be improved. Another area of improvement would be the community which is poor and Google could do a lot better on that front. I know that my team members who have been working with the solution for just a year or two find the architecture to be quite difficult.
Programma en project manager at a consultancy with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Apr 7, 2022
I would like a simpler deployment tool on laptops. It is a bit complicated at the moment. We know how to do it, but it could be easier to deploy it on laptops.
DirectorManaging Partner at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Nov 7, 2021
The only concern is that there is a number of the offerings which are built on their own proprietary technologies. With some of the offerings in Google Cloud, it's difficult to have a path to migrate to other cloud providers.
Teaching Assistant at a government with 201-500 employees
Real User
Apr 23, 2020
Everything so far has gone smoothly, I've never had a struggle with the solution. In terms of product improvement, when it comes to billing, I think they should include something that would give the client or user an indication of what's happening so they can be aware of how pricing is being managed.
It would be helpful if they could improve the user interface. It could use some modifications. There needs to be more directions in terms of how to use the solution.
Google App Engine offers seamless platform integration, automatic scaling, and zero infrastructure maintenance, enhancing development efficiency. Its serverless architecture with robust security measures supports diverse programming needs and simplifies deployment, making it a top choice for modern applications.Designed for effortless web application deployment and API management, Google App Engine integrates smoothly with Google Cloud services, offering automatic scaling without the burden...
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.
I have not yet used the real-time logging feature.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There is limited customization because the sandbox environment restricts it. There are issues with cold starting; apps may take time to wake up if idle for a few minutes. The pricing is higher compared to alternatives like Kubernetes ( /products/kubernetes-reviews ) and Compute Engine.
The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required.
The support for the Indian region is not as good as compared to the support that is offered to the regions in Europe. My company faces a lot of problems with the support team, especially when Google's technical team is not able to help us immediately when we are stuck with something related to the tool. The support of the product is an area where improvements are required. Google App Engine is a good product, and its support needs to be improved as it is a new technology that few people know about. There is a need to spread some awareness about the product while also ensuring that some online forums related to the product need to be updated with a lot of documentation related to the tool.
Some features of runtime don't work well in App Engine. Sometimes we must tune it ourselves or ask Google’s team to improve it. It is the most important thing. Our clients always complain about it.
The documentation is an area that could definitely be improved. Another area of improvement would be the community which is poor and Google could do a lot better on that front. I know that my team members who have been working with the solution for just a year or two find the architecture to be quite difficult.
I would like a simpler deployment tool on laptops. It is a bit complicated at the moment. We know how to do it, but it could be easier to deploy it on laptops.
The only concern is that there is a number of the offerings which are built on their own proprietary technologies. With some of the offerings in Google Cloud, it's difficult to have a path to migrate to other cloud providers.
Everything so far has gone smoothly, I've never had a struggle with the solution. In terms of product improvement, when it comes to billing, I think they should include something that would give the client or user an indication of what's happening so they can be aware of how pricing is being managed.
It would be helpful if they could improve the user interface. It could use some modifications. There needs to be more directions in terms of how to use the solution.
I am limited to sending a photo to five people. I want to be able to send a photo to many people, not just five.
Data consumption of the device could be improved.