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

Anecdotal, I know, but for prospective Latacora customers this is absolutely not reflected in market share. It's AWS first, GCP second, Azure very distant third. I'd happily believe Azure is dominating in some segments where MS showers prospective customers with millions of dollars in credit, but IMO a blind person can see Azure does not have the product offering to warrant a "completeness of vision" that is right on the heels of AWS.



According to Canalys, GCP is at 6% cloud market share (in dollars), Azure at 17.4% and AWS at a bit over 32%.

https://www.canalys.com/static/press_release/2020/Canalys---...

AliCloud and Rackspace are very close to GCP as well.

That being said, if you're planning on running Kubernetes, I'd choose GCP over any other offering - the tooling and support just seems better, in my entirely subjective opinion.


Anecdotally and in my opinion, Azure is more complete than GCP. Between stuff like this and their product dropping stigma, most of my customers (in the cloud consulting space) are trying to get into Azure. This is across every industry we work in (retail especially). I've come across 2 customers in 3 years of consulting that want anything to do with GCP.


> Azure is more complete than GCP

It has more features, yes. How well those features work is another matter entirely.


Can you give more details on this? Anecdotal is fine

I loosely follow AWS, GCP and Azure but I always get mixed opinions on them, especially the last two


I use only small subsets of Azure, but every bit that I do use leaves me with a feeling that I'm the first user of a minimum viable product.

To pick a random example that I'm familiar with: Azure DNS Zones.

When I used AWS Route 53, the main issue I had with it was that I thought the cutesy marketing name was stupid. That's about it. By reading through the docs, I learned a little bit about DNS I didn't know, and I got to learn about the clever engineering that AWS did to work around issues with the DNS protocol itself. In the end, it had more features than I needed, and the basic stuff Just Worked.

When I tried to use Azure DNS, their import tool shredded my data. I then wrote a custom PowerShell import tool, but it took hours to import a mere few thousand records. The next day my account was locked out for "too many API calls" because I simply had the console web gui open. Not used. Open. The GUI showed entries different to the console tools. The GUI string limits don't match the console tool. The perf monitor graph was broken, and is still broken. Basic features were missing, broken, or "coming soon".

You would think DNS would be one of those services that "just works", but nope. Bug city.

Now mind you, most of those issues are fixed now, and they're adding more features and fixing the issues those new features are introducing.

But ask yourself: Why are buggy features being rolled out in production? Did nobody test this shit? Did they ever do a load test? Did they even try basic things like "have the console open with more than 10 records"? Why am I discovering this? Do they not have thousands of customers who have battle-tested this stuff?

Clearly they're just throwing things over the fence and letting support tickets be their QA feedback.

PS: It's even how they use DNS themselves that's just wrong. E.g.: If you use Azure CDN you end up with like 6 CNAME redirects in a row. The DNS standard says CNAMEs shouldn't point to other CNAMEs! At a minimum this is slower than it needs to be, but it's also less reliable because there's more points of failure...


What essential product offerings is Azure missing that AWS have?

My experience is that once AWS offers a new service that gets attention, a few month later also Azure offers it - and vice versa.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: