If anything, I think your title is more editorialized, since Google is clearly doing this for legal reasons, not exactly "voluntarily".
I merely gave my opinion as a non-legal casual news reader. To me at lest this new headline conveyed what happened more clearly before I delved into the article.
As is frustratingly common, the media is stirring up opinion based on vague details and assumptions from a 30 minute video call in May. If there was more detail available it would be more difficult to tell people what to think.
That said, telcos used to mint money from overseas calls, SMS, ringtones etc, until the Internet came along and everything went "over the top" (over data and thus outside operator billing). They didn't take that lying down, either (IIRC Skype was still banned in the UAE until COVID finally whacked some sense into them), but in the end telcos were still reduced to dumb pipes they are today.
They are failing badly IMO. Most developers I know hate the whole experience of using AWS.
I can't complain much as I make good money by understanding their shit so others don't have to.
That said, I always find amazing how one of the largest companies in the world does not a have a UI with happy paths for simple common cases.
Most services are a hot mess of IAM, weird APIs, undocumented limitations and gotchas.
It doesn't have to be great, only better than the alternatives. I would argue most devs prefer the rocky experience of AWS to working with their own operations people on aging hardware.
Maybe the major cloud players believe they can buy up new & unhated competitors before they can establish a loyal user base. That strategy has worked pretty well so far for the vendors of mobile computing -- which just happens to be the primary consumer of low end cloud services.
So if mobile can be commodified some day (the way unix workstations were by Linux), maybe basic cloud services can be too?
Many post-Communist parties in Europe, like Germany's die Linke, have done much better. But unlike the JCP, they've also employed branding consultants and dropped the word "Communist", the hammers and sickles, etc.
For most part, with any of these you get the steep pricing of cloud with the maintenance overhead, lack of flexibility and lengthy commitment periods of on-prem, meaning they're unlikely to be a sensible option unless you have regulatory requirements that force you into it. One use case is wanting to run the same cloud stack globally, but having a market where there is no local region and local law requires that data stay in country.
This specific announcement is new, because this specific announcement is about Outposts in a new, smaller form factor that just went GA today.
>One use case is wanting to run the same cloud stack globally, but having a market where there is no local region and local law requires that data stay in country.
The use case mentioned in the announcement is more about running EC2 instances in small branch offices or retail stores where you 1) still want to run AWS, 2) need the servers to be in very close proximity, and 3) don't have the room or infrastructure for a full rack.
Purely local latency?
> Google Distributed Cloud is a portfolio of fully managed hardware and software solutions which extends Google Cloud’s infrastructure and services to the edge and into your data centers.
Might as well draw a picture of a bike in MS paint. Same effect.
Let's pick an article at random: "End of UK lockdown may mean a rise in bike thefts". You most likely need a few seconds to read and understand that the main topic of the article is bike theft and start to visualize it. I mean, chances that you start reading the title and think "it is about covid" and as you read the end, you think "no, it is about bike theft". Put a really obvious and staged picture of someone stealing a bike and you instantly get it.
Kind of the same reason why we put icons next to text in software UI, even though it is redundant.
By least effort, I don't mean that people should make no effort, but I don't want to force them just because it feels virtuous. In the case of an article, ideally, it should follow a progression. The illustration is the first step: it is quick, and intuitive, enough to know if want to continue or not. Then there is the title, intro, the article itself, and the references. This way, I can spend as much effort as I want, but I am not forced at any point.
So, for example.
1- Illustration of a bike thief: This is about bike theft, I am interested, let's see (alternatively: I don't care, I don't have a bike anyways, let's see the other news)
2- Title: This is about bike theft after the UK lockdown, ah, interesting, I didn't think about that (alternatively: meh, I heard enough about that lockdown)
3- Article: That's a good overview of the situation, but I'd like to learn more (alternatively: fine, that's all I need to know)
4- References: and so on, and so on, ...
11 word headlines are already a shortcut and there is a point where more shortcuts are just taking the piss. Besides, on the internet I’ve probably already committed to clicking on an article before I see most illustrations.
I think illustrative pictures should always add to an article, not be a shortcut to decide interest.
“This public square on Franklin Street is the number one place to have your bike stolen in London” not “remember what a bike looks like?”
The “only respond to the headline” problem HN has is an extended version of the problem.