Google Cloud Reviews

When you push your networking, storage, and other infrastructure from on-premise to the cloud, you can let go of your on-premise real estate and shift the burden back onto the cloud vendor. Google absorbs the cost of power, cooling, management, etc.

You no longer need to spend on CapEx. Instead, you are spending on consumption, so your CapEx moves into OPEX and then on the utility. That's the generic use case for why somebody would move their workload to the cloud.

Migrating to the cloud offers multiple benefits for consumers. One is financial. Customers can let go of their data centers and put the overhead and the hassle of management onto the cloud provider.

It's easy to deploy next-generation applications on Google Cloud. Customers can also use various cloud tools to optimize their operations and generate more insights to do business much smarter.

Cloud vendors can't afford to have data centers all across the world because of the economics of scale and the size of markets. That is one reason that some customers don't get onto the cloud. 

Another issue is the applicability of local language data capturing mechanisms, which are more advanced on cloud service providers, but still there is room to grow. Also, their hybrid version isn't available in all markets worldwide, so I'm hoping that it will be released globally soon.

We've been selling Google Cloud solutions for about a year now. 

Stability has never been a question with any of the three major cloud vendors.

Cloud vendors are more scalable than any on-prem solution. There will always be an increasing demand for cloud solutions. It naturally goes up, and a lot of the other products you use will begin producing cloud versions that can only run on public clouds. 

All three cloud vendors have excellent support. I would rate them nine or 10 out of 10.

So we have a reselling on prem solutions and cloud solutions.

I rate Google Cloud eight out of 10 for ease of deployment. The complexity of deployment can vary depending on the use case and business requirements, but if it's an enterprise workload, we are looking at anywhere from four to six months.

One person could be enough to deploy and manage a cloud solution depending on how critical the workload is. It's also contingent on how much responsibility the customer or the cloud vendor takes. For example, if the cloud vendor takes maximum responsibility in a case like a software service, then the customer only has to configure, manage and run the software.

We are the ones who migrate the workloads, so we're doing the implementation, but there is always. If it's a massive workload, we might bring in third-party integrators who specialize in a particular application workload.

You get an ROI from moving workloads from on-prem to cloud, but the real return comes when your customers start taking advantage of the cloud solution's full features. The return doesn't justify the cost unless you modernize the applications.

Cost can start from less than a dollar and go up. Monthly and yearly base billing is there, but ultimately it depends on customer usage, There could be additional costs. It depends on the requirements. If a customer has some needs that aren't available on the public cloud, they'll have to procure those licenses separately.

The decision to use Google Cloud had nothing to do with its technical capabilities. We were looking at which cloud vendor had the least reach in our market, so we chose that vendor. It's hard to speak generally about the advantages and disadvantages of the different cloud platforms divorced from context.

I rate Google Cloud 10 out of 10. People have limited knowledge of cloud solutions. My advice is that for those considering migration to the cloud is to evaluate the on-prem and cloud alternatives as much as possible because you can make wrong decisions if your perspective is limited. 

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.

We're using the solution for multiple purposes. 

It's accessible from everywhere. It can be used for many purposes.

I like it due to the fact that it can be accessed from everywhere and it can be used for every kind of solution you need. I enjoy the freedom and access it allows for.

The solution is scalable. 

It is stable and reliable. 

The cost could be lowered. 

The analytics could be improved. The analytics that they have are very focused. It serves Google and not really the client. There needs to be some kind of ratio between the purpose of the service, how much of this service is for the client and how much is for the provider. Google is getting more value from the analytics services than the client.

We've used the solution for many years now. It's likely been five to six years at this point. 

The solution is very stable and reliable with good performance on offer. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

You can scale the solution quite easily. It's not a problem at all. 

We have more than 4,000 users on the solution. 

We do not plan to increase usage at this time. 

We are internally supporting the product. We do not need any outside technical support. I've never reached out to Google's technical support services. 

We've used Microsoft and IBM solutions in the past. This was before we began using Google Cloud. 

We are using Google due to the fact that it's completely different. The purpose of Google Cloud is different, and the access to it is different. We are using it for wider services than for any kind of specific purpose or any kind of business focus.

We are using the cloud. There is no installation process required before you start using it. 

In terms of the licensing, I'd rate the solution five out of ten. It could always be cheaper. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. I'm a user myself. It's also very popular as an option in my country. 

I'd rate the solution five 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.