Google Cloud Reviews

Our primary use case is for cloud network applications and for building artificial intelligence-based products.

I have found almost everything valuable. Most cloud products are moving in this direction, including artificial intelligence, blockchain, and security. 

Technical support needs help.

I have been using Google Cloud for three and half years now.

When it comes to vendor reliability Google Cloud is extremely stable.

Google Cloud is scalable and we have over one thousand users with plans to increase that number.

Customer service and support needs some work.

Everything was easy and straightforward in the setup process.

Compared to Azure Cloud, Google Cloud is more expensive but it is okay.

I would definitely recommend Google Cloud they are performing much better than Azure Cloud. I would rate Google Cloud a seven out of ten.

I have been using Google Cloud for personal learning and personal interest.

I use the non-SQL Firebase Realtime Database. I install, apply a database, and install my mobile data globally.

I have been using Google Cloud for approximately one year.

Google Cloud is 100 percent stable.

I have not analyzed the stability of Google Cloud, but for what I use it for it has been good.

Sometimes the Google documents are difficult to learn from. Amazon has better support material.

I rate the support from Google Cloud a three out of five.

I have started using the Amazon Cloud, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud for comparative reasons. For my use case, Google Cloud was the best choice.

I would recommend Google Cloud to others.

I rate Google Cloud a seven out of ten.

We are using Google Cloud for storing our data.

Google Cloud's most valuable features are its performance and ease of access.

Google Cloud could improve the integration with other solutions.

I have been using Google Cloud for more than one year.

Google Cloud is stable.

If there was better integration then it would be able to be scaled more.

I have not contacted support.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Google Cloud a seven 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.

We are using GoogleCloud for hosting a SaaS platform.  

The most valuable feature of the product is that it has a very powerful command line.  

It is difficult to say what should be improved because, obviously, they have made some major improvements in the organization of how you do things — such as the way you set up a server. Google has made a lot of effort to try and catch up to the competition in the area of ease-of-use because that would have been my one complaint: that you have got to be quite technical to understand some of the ways that things are done. Azure and Heroku are number one in ease-of-use and they make it very easy. Google has done a lot of work to alleviate that objection and to catch up with Heroku and Azure. But the people that have the most to say about the ease-of-use would be the guys using it. For the developers we have, they like the power and the control that Google gives them.  

So I can not actually answer what exactly has to improve for developers to be more satisfied at this point because they seem quite satisfied with it already. I do not get any complaints from the guys. They are the ones using it every day and I do not use it on a daily basis so I really can not comment in that sense.  

I could say that it can be easier to use for people that do not have the same level of technical skills, but even that has improved a lot with their upgrade to the user documentation.  

I have experience with Google Cloud for about two years now.  

It is extremely stable. I have no negative feedback and no complaints.  

Google Cloud is very scalable. The use of Docker and Kubernetes has really made it extremely scalable. Google's implementation of Kubernetes is excellent.  

At this stage mainly we have developers and dev-ops using the product and it is a team of about 25 guys. We could expand that at any time.  

The initial setup is somewhat more complicated than competing products. I was not directly involved in that capacity so I can not provide details. But also complexity sometimes leads to opportunity as far as customizing performance. The people who are working with the product directly like the ability to fine-tune more than they want simplicity.  

Initially, I was just doing research. I was keeping an open mind and looking at all of the possibilities. I do not think it is quite right to call it "evaluate" when you just do a feasibility study. We did take a closer look at a few solutions like Azure, Heroku, and Google Cloud. We dabbled a little bit with some of them. We eliminated Azure because we were concerned about the support for Mongo DB which is part of our technology stack. Obviously Azure has changed a lot since.  

We trimmed that group to Heroku and Google Cloud which are technically both platforms of high-quality. Heroku is easier to deal with. Using Google Cloud, you have to build a bit of experience with the product because it is not easy if you do not understand how to do things. Heroku makes it a lot easier for you.  

The reason we went with Google Cloud had to do with two things. Number one was cost, and number two is that Google supported everything we use. We had to control the costs initially, so Heroku was pretty much out the door almost immediately. It was a competitive product but it was too expensive. An end-user would not know where a platform is hosted, and they would not care. For an end-user, they go on your website or on your SaaS platform and there is no difference in the experience whether you are hosted with Google or Heroku or AWS. It makes no sense for them to worry about that. But the cost ends up being an important component of the decision for the service company.  

I think the point is that it is very difficult for companies these days to decide between Heroku, Azure and Google Cloud. They all have data centers in the right places in the UK. There is very little that differentiates any of them. Heroku obviously stands out because they are a very stable platform and they do all the hard work for you. If you do not have the expertise to go with a less expensive more labor-intensive solution, then you would go with Heroku and pay more.  

We have a development center in Manila with very experienced guys and they love Google Cloud. It gives them everything they need and everything that is required for a big, fast platform — like the ability to use clustering. I think all of the solutions support Java and ATC (Advanced Analytics Technology). But we have not had any issues since we started on Google Cloud, so we are happy with the direction we have taken.  

The lesson I learned from adopting Google Cloud is that you should do more training before you commit to it.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Google Cloud as an eight-out-of-ten. You can not have a perfect platform. There is always room for improvement and something to add.  

That rating is really because of the feedback I get from the team. I get good feedback from the guys. But it is not really fair of me to give any product a ten if I am not more intimate with it in daily use. I could just as well give it a one if I were totally ignorant of the product, but that would not mean anything.  

I use it for documentation.

I like the simple features that allow me to share documents with others.

Google Cloud is also stable and scalable.

It is easy to use as well.

The privacy could be improved so that it is more secure.

I've been using it for five years. It's a cloud-based solution.

Google Cloud is stable.

It is a scalable solution.

I would recommend Google Cloud and rate it at nine on a scale from one to ten.

I use the solution to back up my data.

The automatic sync between my mobile device data and photos to the cloud is the most valuable feature.

Being able to access my files remotely is a plus.

The cost of the solution has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward and takes no time. We only need to enter our Gmail account information to access Google Cloud.

Google offers a free account with minimal data backup and we can subscribe for more data. I pay around $2 US per month.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

I recommend the solution. Google Cloud is easy to use.

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.