> Google will offer a single managed service that will let you manage and deploy workloads across clouds [...] This is Google, after all, managing your applications for you on AWS and Azure
"What's required to run Anthos?
Anthos has multiple components. Among these, running GKE On-Prem requires vCenter 6.5 in order to create VMs for the GKE On-Prem cluster. Additionally, GKE On-Prem integrates with F5 BIG-IP load balancers in order to provide layer 4 load balancing."
At least AWS Outposts and Azure Stack include all the hardware and all the licenses in the box.
Like if you see that something costs $X, and you can only afford $Y, you might not even bother with it.
But if you talk with them they might be able to work within your budget.
But of course, when you do that, it's a clear sign you're targeting large clients/contracts, so your smaller customers won't want to bother with it.
Buy in to Kubernetes, buy in to Google Anthos, have the appearance of flexibility, but get used to GCP's tooling, quirks, documentation, etc, etc, and before long you're considering GC as the first option for all new development.
It makes perfect sense from where they are in the market.
On the other hand, where you do get potential stickiness are in the differentiated managed service offerings Google Cloud offers. These range broadly, from industry solutions & APIs to AI/ML services, to more more core data products (Spanner, Dataproc, BigQuery).
The second set of products/services don't really have any bearing on the OSS strategy and is unfair to position Google as being intentionally disingenuous in the marketing.
You can also see this in healthcare with Epic. They use absolutely bizarre names for everything to the point that it is hard for organizations using Epic to talk to organizations using other EHRs, or for employees to move between them. And since they have an absolute stranglehold on training and documentation, you basically have to go through them to be indoctrinated.
Folks have a real fear of change and learning is viewed as difficult and/or annoying. This can create considerable inertia that you can exploit.
They aren't doing anything to block us from leaving, and anyone here thinking there is going to be some kind of 100% unified API between every cloud provider is out of touch with reality, if that is what their expectation of "no vendor lock-in" is.
Google is launching the first beta of Anthos Migrate today. This service will auto-migrate VMs from on-premises or other clouds into containers in the Google Kubernetes Engine. The promise here is that this is essentially an automatic process and once the container is on Google’s platform
Edit: They demoed it on stage a few minutes after I asked... should have just waited. >.<
I like the idea of something you can just install and run on your existing hardware, but that doesn't seem to be the goal of this either as they only support a single router and a single proprietary virtualization platform. That seems even worse than just giving you a box you can plug in like AWS and Azure.
Bigger question is what is it going to take for Google to offer anything more than this? Google has very restrictive source code policies internally, so I'd guess they'd be extremely reluctant to let the binaries for things like BigTable which run all of Google and GCP leave their network. Do they rewrite all their services or let BigTable run outside of firewall and throw an atomic clock in the box?
Outposts has a limited feature set if you arent using vsphere, and Azure uses Microsoft's existing private cloud/on prem stack.
Enterprises are scared of one way bad decisions so if GC can convince them containerizing and moving their apps to kubernetes first is worth it over "lift and shift" this could go well. One of the few competitive advantages google has for enterprises is they can point to Amazon and Azure being forced to add managed Kubernetes services, because customers wanted that instead of a proprietary orchestrator.
People comparing the deprecation of an RSS reader to that of an enterprise-tier service clearly don't understand anything about tech.
It's a huge problem that Google will have to overcome. Say what you will about AWS, but they've only ever cancelled one product as far as I know (SimpleDB) and they gave people multiple years warning and a replacement product.
Remember when Amazon used to run a search engine? No? They were really big into it. I even used it for a while, around 2006. Then they cancelled it, with no replacement. Remember the Fire Phone? Unsurprisingly they quickly discontinued it with no successor. (And before you object... By the standards of the "Google kills all products" meme not making a follow-up to a hardware device counts. And this wasn't the Fire Phone riding slowly into the sunset with a deprecation period.)
They had competitors for Paypal, for Yahoo Answers,
Amazon used to have a Paypal competitor too. They killed it with no replacement. How about that Yahoo Answers competitor they had. Guess what? Dead. With no replacement. Amapedia, their "wikipedia for products sold on Amazon" is of course dead. Because it was an Amazon product, and that's what Amazon do. They make products, and then they kill them.
But somehow you're willing to give Amazon a free pass, while thinking that the worn-out joke about Google is a "valid point".