It's still inflated because azure revenue is counted with other server products like Windows Server, SQL server and Enterprise mobility under the 'Intelligent Cloud' division.
I'm new here, so are you that snarky Twitter guy with an open jaw pic as a profile pic? I'm not sure if you still consider an at least 8 billion dollar annual revenue run rate business (GCP) as a 'hobby'.
Office 365 and Azure with other cloud based services is still counted under the 'Commercial Cloud' division. I'm sure that's what op is referring to and with G Suite and GCP under the Google Cloud division.
I was wrong, MS seems to have changed its revenue disclosing methodology but it's still not clear how much Azure generates as it's lumped with Windows server, SQL server and Enterprise mobility under the 'Intelligent Cloud' division.
In the US, it's the government that created the free market, and did it for the people. The US government is "of the people, by the people, for the people."
...Or at least it used to be. Now maybe in 2020 now, "people" can be replaced with "corporations".
It is upsetting to some because some people assume a resource can't have feelings. Like saying "women are objects." Obviously this isn't what is meant with Human Resources but in today's world people want to argue over naming conventions as if their perspective of a name or even a definition is the only right one because it fits their goal. Make no mistake if you called Human Resources instead Team Builders someone would eventually a few years down the road get mad because you can only build buildings with objects and so the name doesn't do justice to the feelings of people again.
It's simpler than that. Things and people inherit the properties of what they're called. That's why slurs are so powerful. e.g. n-word, c-word.
I don't believe I've ever seen a post on HN about how wonderful a Human Resources department has ever been, or ever treated anyone fairly. Feel free to prove me wrong here.
If you can dehumanize humans, then you can treat them like objects. It's easier to do firings or layoffs, or cut back on pay raises and benefits.
The problem is not that human are resources. They are.
But from a production point of view, the problem is when you think that a human is equivalent to another with the same title and they are easily interchangeable.
I did not use Google Cloud so I cannot tell. I would not be surprised if Google Cloud is well run. Since the product is intrinsically a product for engineers, I would expect that it is run by people with more engineering background and rigor.
If you want anther example, one that come to mind is Google WiFi. When I installed it for a family member, I noticed that (1) You needed to install an app on your phone in order to configure it (2) The Google account on your phone (and you needed one) was going to be the one that "manage" the Google WIFI network (3) The phone needed to have a working internet connection to be able to configure it (4) Google WIFI lacked some standard options (5) Once the Internet connection is down Google WiFI also shuts down the local intranet.
That made me think that whoever was running Google WIFI as a product probably did not know a lot about the last 20 years of how a router has been working and has been configured.
So they ended up making a few assumptions that are problematic. For example:
- My phone did not have reception where my family member lived. And since I did not have a working Internet connection I could not download the app and use it at their house.
- The family member did not have a Google account, so I had to use mine or create a new one just for configuring the router.
- I could not configure something (not remember exactly what) that any other router could.
- When the Internet is down, and it regularly happen in that area, you cannot print.
For at least 10 years, the standard home routers have been having a web UI where you can configure them. This is a pretty basic thing. How could have Google WIFI ignoring it?
People with limited tech background that never configured a router must have been in charge.
I think dart/flutter serves primarily two purposes, as I see it. First the obvious one, Google is trying to get devs used to flutter as when the time comes to switch to Fuchsia/Zircon, it would be relatively a breeze.
Secondly, and the most immediate reason, I think it's a very clever and clear move from Google to lock-in devs into using Google Cloud services like Firebase and Cloud ML services by leveraging Flutter. If you have observed, Microsoft has given a rebirth to their Xamarin developers YouTube channel and have been hosting 'The Xamarin Show', which is, hmm, quite similar to 'The Boring Flutter Development Show'.
