Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Amazon: Create usual services and sell them.

Google: Make unique products that push the boundaries of what was previously thought possible.

Amazon: Don't care about inefficiencies and usage. Inefficiencies can be handled by charging more to the clients, usage doesn't matter because the users are mostly the clients and they don't feel their pain.

Google: Had to make all their core technologies efficient, performant, scalable and maintainable or they couldn't sustain their business.




Not fair.

Amazon: IaaS

Google: PaaS

Amazon is philosophy is being 'close to the metal' to allow Enterprise customer to migrate 'regular apps' into a 'regular environment' in the cloud.

Most of Google's offerings are (at least were) novel, but proprietary ways of doing specific things.

Amazon is not a laggard: they have provided a number of interesting and useful 'helper' things to facilitate IaaS - as well as a number of 'pure cloud' type things.

Amazon is very, very customer focused. Their products come from customer demands.

Google often 'cool things they've done internally' and exposes them, hoping that they might have some use-case in the rest of the world.

Google and Amazon are equally interested in profit.


Google is IaaS, their PaaS offering (App Engine) never gained much traction AFAIK. I also find the comparison fair, Google is a software engineering company, Amazon is a sales/marketing company.


At what point do infrastructure services become the platform? IMO, between GKE, Spanner, BigQuery, etc., it's basically a PaaS for non-trivial applications.



> Google: Had to make all their core technologies efficient, performant, scalable and maintainable or they couldn't sustain their business.

Which Amazon totally didn't have to do with their firehose of cash?


Google has to support Google, Youtube and many of the most resources intensive services in existence on Earth. They needed to be "efficient enough" to operate that, meaning incredibly efficient.

Amazon runs nothing, it's an outsourcing firm. They needed to make services "good enough" to be sold. If a service is somewhat inefficient, it just charges the clients more to cover the costs.

Technologies reflect the business they were created in.


> Amazon runs nothing, it's an outsourcing firm.

What the fuck are you talking about. It's one thing to say AWS services are "good enough" but "Amazon runs nothing" is a ridiculous statement.


Agreed, and I work on Google Cloud. We may have different styles and core businesses, but I wouldn't say "eBay ran nothing" either. Logistics alone is a super fascinating space!


Interesting. But Do Amazon actually do much Logistics? I thought they are much more Warehouse and outsourced delivery to DHL and UPS.


You do realize the way most services get into AWS is that they're first built in the retail side of Amazon (without any thought towards AWS) and then once people realize it's effectively solving an actual problem, it's rebuilt for AWS. Having to support Amazon retail is a pretty demanding stress test -- I'm not sure why you're getting this notion that Amazon doesn't run anything. I should think handling Black Friday alone would count for something..


That is something of a myth. AWS was created and evolves completely separately from retail, which didn't really use it in anger until 2010ish. Retail is effectively a large customer to AWS. They're very good at watching what customers are doing in general.


The 'rebuilt for AWS' phrase is key.


No one is saying amazon doesn't test their stuff. The argument here is that Google is inherently a more technical company, which is a fair comparison. Their products are more technical. Ad Sense, Gmail, YouTube are incredibly technical products due to their scale, and the argument here is that nothing of similar technicality exists in Amazon's core business, which I think is totally fair.


> The argument here is that Google is inherently a more technical company, which is a fair comparison.

I suspect that Google knows this, and their reputation for have poor customer support and sales comes from that knowledge.


Yeah that's all pretty accurate too. :)




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: