They don't use GCP data whatsoever for ads. Thinking they'd peep into cloud customer data for the advertising boost (besides the small data point 'visited hostname console.cloud.google.com') is just as irrational as thinking Amazon would leverage AWS to look into Walmarts' suppliers' data to gain a competitive advantage.
That’s my point, it’s irrational to think that. Amazon has so little to gain by doing that compared to the absolute mass of customers that would be migrated off of aws within a few years of such a scandal.
Counterpoint: at the same time, it's something you can do and not do at the same time - everything in AWS is virtualized (save for $$$$$ physical hosts almost nobody uses) and it's not like it's impossible to undetectably analyse/monitor running VMs in realtime.
So you can both do this (silently) and "not" do it (because it's impossible to detect), and it would thus be stupid to not actually do it because it's free data.
Zooming out I think this and the opposite view are equally possible. Just articulating what this perspective looks like.
That was because Amazon is a competitor to Walmart. It's not a risk that would apply to most companies. And it's probably not a very realistic risk, either. Walmart may have just been trying to hurt a competitor.
Google Cloud is very different from Google's consumer product and advertising side. It has revenues of $13 billion which all comes directly from customers paying them money, not indirectly via advertising etc. Larger companies sign agreements with Google that cover what it does and doesn't promise, and enterprise companies are their highest priority target market. Google Cloud has its own CEO, Thomas Kurian, previously president of product development at Oracle, who was at Oracle for over 20 years.
The pattern you're referring to really doesn't apply to this business. If anything it's the opposite: Kurian's goal is to make Gcloud more like Oracle, and part of that involves making sure enterprise customers don't need to be skittish about the kinds of concerns you seem to be thinking of.
Yes, but that's because they're investing heavily to grow the business, as that article explains, which is hugely strategic for Google.
The fact that the current run rate is $22bn compared to the $13bn revenue in 2020 suggests that they're succeeding - that's some pretty significant growth.
It's a completely different business model from the consumer/ad side, and confusing the two is a mistake.
They're at different points in their lifecycle and have very different revenues and budgets. Amazon itself was famously unprofitable for many years, for exactly the same reason Gcloud is now: to grow the business as fast as possible.
Independent companies like that are funded by investors for years, all the time. The cloud market is expected to hit close to a trillion dollars by 2026. Gcloud doesn't have to take away a single existing AWS customer to win big.
> Xoogler
So what's your take? You think Google might just decide to shut down a fast-growing business with $13-20bn revenues and huge upside potential as if it were a free product like Reader? Or you think they somehow aren't able to make it profitable so will just give up?
Neither of those are really how these things work.
All I'm saying is that this business isn't a monopoly like search or a near duopoly like ads. The competition is stiff. There are two players who are well ahead of them and the ones behind aren't sitting still. I don't expect any miracles with run of the mill management consulting leadership at the helm.
I'm sure they're just "using insights from their operational infrastructure to improve the services they provide to customers". Which is still something that all but the most skeptical of engineers and managers would fail to see a potential problem with.
