Protocol | Enterprise

How Google Cloud plans to kill its ‘Killed By Google’ reputation

Under the new Google Enterprise APIs policy, the company is making a promise that its services will remain available and stable far into the future.

Thomas Kurian, CEO of Google Cloud, speaks at Google Cloud Next '19 in San Francisco.

Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian has promised to make the company more customer-friendly.

Photo: Michael Short/Bloomberg via Getty Images 2019

Google Cloud issued a promise Monday to current and potential customers that it's safe to build a business around its core technologies, another step in its transformation from an engineering playground to a true enterprise tech vendor.

Starting Monday, Google will designate a subset of APIs across the company as Google Enterprise APIs, including APIs from Google Cloud, Google Workspace and Google Maps. APIs selected for this category — which will include "a majority" of Google Cloud APIs according to Kripa Krishnan, vice president at Google Cloud — will be subject to strict guidelines regarding any changes that could affect customer software built around those APIs.

"It is built on the principle that no feature may be removed or changed in a way that is backwards incompatible for as long as customers are actively using it," Krishnan said. "If a deprecation or breaking change of an API is unavoidable, then we are saying that the burden is on us to make the experience as effortless and painless as possible to our customers."

The announcement is clear recognition of widespread feedback from Google Cloud customers and outright derision in several corners of the internet regarding Google's historic reputation for ending support for its APIs without sufficient notice or foresight. The canonical example was probably the company's decision to shutter Google Reader in 2013 with just a couple of months' notice, which led to a torrent of criticism that persists today.

But while it's one thing to discontinue free consumer-facing services like Reader that Google thinks aren't used widely enough to justify ongoing support, it's quite another to adopt that stance with paying business customers. Even if they're one of only a few customers using a particular service, cloud customers need to know that service will be available and stable far into the future.

"We're striving to leave no dead ends in our products and leave no customer behind, even if this adds significant costs to us," Krishnan said.

Chopping block

When asked if she was familiar with the "Killed By Google" website and Twitter account, run by Cody Ogden as a satirical take on Google's reputation for stability, Krishnan couldn't help but laugh.

"It was pretty apparent to us from many sources on the internet that we were not doing well," she allowed.

Over the last several years, Google Cloud has been trying to shed a well-earned reputation as an engineering-driven organization that considered itself the foremost authority on web-scale infrastructure computing, regardless of what its customers actually wanted to do with its tools. That mindset — bordering on arrogance — really stood out against competitors like AWS, which won the trust of developers and CIOs with its early commitment to cloud customers, and Microsoft, which has nurtured business relationships with nearly every company on the planet over the last several decades.

This mentality began to change in early 2019 after CEO Thomas Kurian was brought in from Oracle to teach Google Cloud how to be an enterprise tech vendor. Kurian hired legions of enterprise salespeople to develop closer relationships with cloud buyers, and also began to steer Google Cloud's product-development culture into a more humble posture.

"Pride is a trap for the unwary, and it has ensnared many a Google team into thinking that their decisions are always right, and that correctness (by some vague fuzzy definition) is more important than customer focus," wrote Steve Yegge, a former software engineer at both Google and Amazon, in an epic post last August excoriating Google's approach to supporting its tools.

Google Cloud has heard that feedback loud and clear, Krishnan said.

"It was not that we didn't have [a deprecation] policy before, it just didn't work for us at scale. It worked much better when you were small, and you have contained customer units or users that you interact with daily," she said. "It absolutely did not work at the scale of cloud, so we had to rethink it."

Under the new Google Enterprise API policy, the company is promising that it won't kill or alter APIs that are being "actively used" by its customers, although it's not exactly clear how "active use" is defined. Should Google decide it needs to deprecate or make a change that will force customers to make substantial alterations to their own software, it will give at least one year's notice of the impending change.

Safe for business

The new program should remove some objections that cloud buyers might have had about Google, but the frequency at which Google makes changes to its APIs under this program will be scrutinized against similar decisions at AWS and Microsoft. Industry watchers believe the two leading cloud providers have made far fewer changes to their services over the past several years compared to Google.

Cloud infrastructure computing is in the late-majority phase of the adoption cycle, and the companies that frantically purchased cloud services amid the pandemic last year are companies that tend to be more risk averse than cloud early adopters. The new API policy will also give current Google Cloud customers a little more assurance that they won't have to repeat all the work it took to move to the cloud a few years down the road if Google decided it no longer wanted to support a service that was critically important to their business.

"These tenets are a much deeper construct that really strikes at the root of how we do work in Google Cloud," Krishnan said. "It's really a shift in the mindset of the organization as we pivot more and more towards doing right by our customers."

More details on the Google Enterprise API policy are available here.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misspelled Cody Ogden's name. This story was updated on July 26, 2021.

Power

How the creators of Spligate built gaming’s newest unicorn

1047 Games is now valued at $1.5 billion after three rounds of funding since May.

1047 Games' Splitgate amassed 13 million downloads when its beta launched in July.

Image: 1047 Games

The creators of Splitgate had a problem. Their new free-to-play video game, a take on the legendary arena shooter Halo with a teleportation twist borrowed from Valve's Portal, was gaining steam during its open beta period in July. But it was happening too quickly.

Splitgate was growing so fast and unexpectedly that the entire game was starting to break, as the servers supporting the game began to, figuratively speaking, melt down. The game went from fewer than 1,000 people playing it at any given moment in time to suddenly having tens of thousands of concurrent players. Then it grew to hundreds of thousands of players, all trying to log in and play at once across PlayStation, Xbox and PC.

Keep Reading Show less
Nick Statt
Nick Statt is Protocol's video game reporter. Prior to joining Protocol, he was news editor at The Verge covering the gaming industry, mobile apps and antitrust out of San Francisco, in addition to managing coverage of Silicon Valley tech giants and startups. He now resides in Rochester, New York, home of the garbage plate and, completely coincidentally, the World Video Game Hall of Fame. He can be reached at nstatt@protocol.com.

While it's easy to get lost in the operational and technical side of a transaction, it's important to remember the third component of a payment. That is, the human behind the screen.

Over the last two years, many retailers have seen the benefit of investing in new, flexible payments. Ones that reflect the changing lifestyles of younger spenders, who are increasingly holding onto their cash — despite reports to the contrary. This means it's more important than ever for merchants to take note of the latest payment innovations so they can tap into the savings of the COVID-19 generation.

Keep Reading Show less
Antoine Nougue,Checkout.com

Antoine Nougue is Head of Europe at Checkout.com. He works with ambitious enterprise businesses to help them scale and grow their operations through payment processing services. He is responsible for leading the European sales, customer success, engineering & implementation teams and is based out of London, U.K.

Protocol | Policy

Why Twitch’s 'hate raid' lawsuit isn’t just about Twitch

When is it OK for tech companies to unmask their anonymous users? And when should a violation of terms of service get someone sued?

The case Twitch is bringing against two hate raiders is hardly black and white.

Photo: Caspar Camille Rubin/Unsplash

It isn't hard to figure out who the bad guys are in Twitch's latest lawsuit against two of its users. On one side are two anonymous "hate raiders" who have been allegedly bombarding the gaming platform with abhorrent attacks on Black and LGBTQ+ users, using armies of bots to do it. On the other side is Twitch, a company that, for all the lumps it's taken for ignoring harassment on its platform, is finally standing up to protect its users against persistent violators whom it's been unable to stop any other way.

But the case Twitch is bringing against these hate raiders is hardly black and white. For starters, the plaintiff here isn't an aggrieved user suing another user for defamation on the platform. The plaintiff is the platform itself. Complicating matters more is the fact that, according to a spokesperson, at least part of Twitch's goal in the case is to "shed light on the identity of the individuals behind these attacks," raising complicated questions about when tech companies should be able to use the courts to unmask their own anonymous users and, just as critically, when they should be able to actually sue them for violating their speech policies.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Protocol | Workplace

Remote work is here to stay. Here are the cybersecurity risks.

Phishing and ransomware are on the rise. Is your remote workforce prepared?

Before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

Photo: Stefan Wermuth/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The delta variant continues to dash or delay return-to-work plans, but before your company institutes work-from-home-forever plans, you need to ensure that your workforce is prepared to face the cybersecurity implications of long-term remote work.

So far in 2021, CrowdStrike has already observed over 1,400 "big game hunting" ransomware incidents and $180 million in ransom demands averaging over $5 million each. That's due in part to the "expanded attack surface that work-from-home creates," according to CTO Michael Sentonas.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma
Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol, where she writes about management, leadership and workplace issues in tech. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.
Protocol | Fintech

When COVID rocked the insurance market, this startup saw opportunity

Ethos has outraised and outmarketed the competition in selling life insurance directly online — but there's still an $887 billion industry to transform.

Life insurance has been slow to change.

Image: courtneyk/Getty Images

Peter Colis cited a striking statistic that he said led him to launch a life insurance startup: One in twenty children will lose a parent before they turn 15.

"No one ever thinks that will happen to them, but that's the statistics," the co-CEO and co-founder of Ethos told Protocol. "If it's a breadwinning parent, the majority of those families will go bankrupt immediately, within three months. Life insurance elegantly solves this problem."

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Signal at (510)731-8429.

Latest Stories