Google Cloud Reviews

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 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.

I primarily use the solution for a couple of small development environments.

The solution is just simple and easy for me to configure. It's very easy to work with and navigate through. The user experience is very good. Overall, it's very easy to use.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

The solution has been good overall. I can't recall having any features missing.

The solution could be less expensive.

It may be helpful to go through some training in order to get comfortable with the product.

The user interface could be a bit better. I've done a few deployments following the tutorial, and afterward, I'm not quite sure what exactly I've done. I just follow the instructions and just finish the command prompt and then it looks like it's working - but why, and how? I'm not quite sure. I want to understand fundamentally what I've done. If there were more documentation and training, it would be very helpful in explaining the underlying processes. 

I've been using the solution for three or four years at this point. 

My usage is quite limited, and therefore, I haven't experienced many problems at the moment. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable.

It's my understanding that the solution can scale, however, I haven't explored this aspect yet.

Mainly, it's just me on the solution. There isn't much of a team surrounding it. I do have a couple of other teams outsourcing ideas, however.

I haven't needed to reach out to technical support. I can't speak to how knowledgeable or responsive they are to inquiries.

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. It's not complex at all. A company shouldn't have any issues with the initial setup.

The deployment was very fast and only maybe took an hour.

The pricing is okay, however, it could always be cheaper, which is always better.

There isn't too much difference in price when comparing it to what else is on the market.

I'm a Google partner.

Overall, the solution has been pretty good and I don't really have any complaints to discuss.

In general, on a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at a nine.

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.

We use Google Cloud for setting up the server. It is our development Server.

It is simple to use. 

Everything was very simple to set up. I would say that we were already fairly comfortable with Google. 

It didn't take long to get everything set up and understand what was going on. Things are pretty clear.

The price could improve. Every customer would agree, that they would like the price to be reduced.

We have been working with Google Cloud for one year.

I am satisfied with the stability of Google Cloud.

The scalability of Google Cloud is good. It's a scalable product.

We only have one instance, which is a single server.

We didn't require any technical support. We were able to find solutions on the internet.

The security features in OpenText are great. 

For web security, we do not use anything specific. Because we are working on OpenText AppWorks, the built-in security features are useful. In the production environment, the customer is responsible for the security of the web servers.

We use both Windows Server 2019 and Linux Servers.

Our customers have tested Webroot endpoint protection, and have not had any issues.

We are also working with Amazon AWS EC2. Our feedback would be similar to Google Cloud.

The initial setup is straightforward.

I don't remember the exact time because it was a while ago, but from what I recall, the setup took no more than two or three hours.

Technical assistance is required, but it is easily accessible via the internet. It is not difficult to understand.

In my opinion, the price is not excessive when compared to competitors. The market determines the price.

Licensing fees are paid monthly.

We have not yet evaluated Pega BPM, but we plan to do so in the future. We may begin practicing in Pega.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Google Cloud a nine out of ten.

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'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.