Google Launches Cloud Platform for Startups

Mining bitcoins on a cloud platform is a net loss even if the CPU time is free: it'll take you more labor time to set up than you'll gain. If you burn $100k in Google Cloud compute time on mining across hundreds of machines, you'll net something like $30.

dragonwriter5• 12 years ago

Cache is not the same thing as cash.

aioprisan• 12 years ago

This is only for incubated startups: "In an approved Accelerator, Incubator or VC fund"

calgaryeng2• 12 years ago

This offer is available to startups that meet the following criteria: - In an approved Accelerator, Incubator or VC fund

Why is this a thing? Not everyone wants to build their startup through venture capital, or an accelerator. This just reinforces the existing "permission-based" startup ecosystem.

xedarius• 12 years ago

Couldn't agree more, I even go as far to say Google seem a little out of touch here. Would this offer have helped Google become Google, probably not.

meowface3• 12 years ago

It's how they're handling risk, so that they can give away the $100,000 in credit without having to spend a lot of time doing due diligence and confirming that a certain startup company is at least somewhat feasible.

morganvachon• 12 years ago

Google probably doesn't want every Kickstarter/Indiegogo project applying for the program. It's likely a risk thing; if the startup is backed by a "real" VC firm, that firm is taking most of the risk. Google is just providing a few extra rungs on the ladder others built.

walterbell4• 12 years ago

It's effectively a subsidy to accelerators: $100K of risk capital being matched by $100K of hosting, doubling the initial runway for a startup which needs that level of capacity.

lifeisstillgood• 12 years ago

Completely agree ... Except from Googles point of view they will otherwise be in the position of deciding "real startups" from wannabes and then deciding which ones are most likely to succeed. At which point google becomes worlds biggest incubator.

But yes, I think many many governments could do a lot worse than say "have you got a business plan and two paying customers? Here have enough money to live on, got off the dole and we have 15% equity if you become the next standard oil."

dragonwriter5• 12 years ago

At which point google becomes worlds biggest incubator.

And Google has already setup and helped to setup a bunch of startup incubators, so it makes sense to leverage that investment rather than duplicating effort.

davidw2• 12 years ago

"permission-based" startup ecosystem.

What's that?! Startups are getting easier and easier to start with no VC involvement, and there is a large community of people doing bootstrapping.

If anything, I'd question who is voting this article up. It's of little use to most of us.

Kurtz795• 12 years ago

You realize that you are writing in a news site hosted by a startup accelerator, right ?

I can´t think of many other places where it would be more relevant.

trjordan• 12 years ago

It's not perfect, but what's a better way?

There's a million people who could use this $100k to mine bitcoins, run personal servers, do scientific calculations, or more. Google isn't interested in those people: they want to lock in companies and keep them there as they grow quickly. If you worked at Google, what would you propose to catch these long-term valuable customers, without giving away a ton of free infrastructure?

mmariani• 12 years ago

As there is another million people bootstrapping their businesses. What they should do is to find additional criteria to augment the startup validation process. A very simple criteria would be to maintain a front-facing service that provides value to consumers, excluding: bitcoin mining, run malware, etc.

walterbell4• 12 years ago

University partnership? GSOC competition? AWS customers with high month-over-month revenue & traffic growth and less than 10 employees? There are many ways of triaging worthy candidates and involving the broader tech community, without further advantaging the already over-advantaged.

miles9325• 12 years ago

Where are you seeing evidence of lock-in? Compared to the financial lock-in of having plunked down $$ on servers, most cloud players seem pretty open to me.

spindritf• 12 years ago

It's a thing because it's easier and cheaper to let others do the hard job of selecting hopeful startups. Cuts down on abuse, too.

patio112• 12 years ago

Starting a business was quite possibly the first thing in my life that I didn't need to ask anyone's permission for. You don't need Google's, YC's, or a VC's blessing to start. You might need it to get their money, but startup costs for many software companies are asymptotically approaching zero.

idlewords6• 12 years ago

If I could change one thing about business culture in Europe, it would be this. You just start doing something and the paperwork, permits, accounting and so on can all come later. It's a wonderful feeling.

My impression is that you can't get started in the EU without at least a little up-front paperwork.

calgaryeng2• 12 years ago

Appreciate your comment, but the act of starting the business is not what I was referring to. Obviously the cost of running a small startup is effectively zero for all practical purposes.

I'm talking about the VC/accelerator-backed startups that gain traction and mindshare, solely because of "permission" (otherwise stated "a nod") from VC's or accelerators, when other, better products may exist. The very fact that this program largely eliminates/discriminates against an entire swath of entrepreneurs who DONT want to move to Silicon Valley is closer to my point.

idlewords6• 12 years ago

I really enjoy the dissonance between startup mythology (bold innovators who play by nobody's rules) and the very conservative reality, as expressed in eligibility criteria like this. Think different, in one of the approved ways.

Why this part of our industry is exempt from disruption, while everything else is fair game, is a source of constant wonder to me.

patio112• 12 years ago

I feel obligated to point out that Microsoft Bizspark will give you free software/services for 3 years and it is "one guy working from his kitchen table"-friendly. If you're building things, they will give you stuff.

Bonus: You can help support underdog upstarts like Microsoft against uncaring tech titans like Google.

meowface3• 12 years ago

This is just Google's form of semi-automatic due diligence. Instead of them having to carefully vet each startup, determine that they're actually getting work done and are a real company and have at least some tiny bit of potential, they'll just defer to the accelerators and incubators to decide on that.

Remember they're giving away $100,000 of credit for free, so they have to make sure it's not being squandered.

I also agree that incubators and accelerators should never be seen as necessary to create a successful startup, and I don't think Google is claiming that either. This is just how they're handling risk. Remember this is a new platform for Google to make money, they're not just giving it away as charity.

eli• 12 years ago

I would guess it's a cheap way to try to target the offer to people actually trying to build companies (vs hobbyists or established companies)

kiriljakimovski• 12 years ago

A possible explanation might be that startups that have been selected in these accelerators have more potential to become successful businesses in the future (either in raising money or in building something people want). I mean, someone already placed a bet on them.

You get the free cloud for only a year. After that you start paying, and since you’re already there it’s very likely that you’ll proceed with Google. So, they’re not giving away anything, they’re just trying to grab market share before the competitors.

mrcwinn• 12 years ago

For what it's worth, folks with their own unfunded startup are free to use services from other places. For people in an accelerator or funded by a VC, this is a meaningful service that could extend their runway a bit.

Of course, it also locks them into Google's ecosystem (practically) when they do hit it big - but I think that's obvious upfront. Why should Google, a for-profit company, gain nothing for its $100,000 (at most)? If you are in one of those accelerators and have a concern about being tied to Google, you're, again, free to go elsewhere.

simonswords822• 12 years ago

Yep, I got really excited about this for our bootstrapped app www.staffsquared.com only to read the small print and realise we couldn't use this as we're not VC backed. Very frustrating.

psykovsky• 12 years ago

Small print? May I suggest you reset your browser zoom level?

arikrak• 12 years ago

This isn't charity, their goal is to lose money initially and make it up in the long run. They only want to give it to startups who will be likely to spend lots of money after year 1. This is a simple way of making sure the company has money.

tzm• 12 years ago

This program is a scalable way to find growth startups that are validated and on pathway to revenue. It's not an open check book. If you don't meet the criteria for this program, I'm sure there are options for you. Google is actively looking for startups of all types and are willing to invest resources. I recommend talking with an account manager (ping me if you want a starting point).

tonysuper2• 12 years ago

Yeah. This was pretty disappointing for me. I'm in the process of starting a company with a friend, but neither of us are 18 yet, so the chances of us getting into an accelerator or VC fund are next to zero (not that it's going to stop us from applying). We could have really used this service.

Oh well. I understand why Google is doing it, but it's still disappointing.

miles9325• 12 years ago

What are you working on? Maybe I can help?

joeblau• 12 years ago

It may be seen as a decent way for accomplishing due diligence. Most accelerator programs will check out the company, product and team. This also helps Google avoid being the first investor in as most accelerators usually invest in projects in their program. That being said, you can still use Google's services for free as long as you're below the cap.

dragonwriter5• 12 years ago

Why is this a thing?

Because this isn't free for Google, so they are expending resources building relationships with the customers they think are most likely to provide more business in the future; so they aren't giving to any small business, they are giving it to businesses that have been vetted by groups they trust and are receiving capital with some kind of plan for expansion that would grow the startup's business -- and therefore the business that Google would see from the startup if the startup stayed on Google's platform.

Not everyone wants to build their startup through venture capital, or an accelerator.

Sure, but the cost to Google to vet each individual startup to see if they were the kind of potential customer they'd like to expend these resources for would drive up the cost of providing the service. Google isn't a charity, its a for-profit business.

$100,000 in service credits plus 1:1 technical architecture reviews plus 24/7 support isn't something even Google can afford to provide to everyone.

So they outsource the work of screening by instead screening a smaller number of accelerators, incubators, etc.

Jun8• 12 years ago

It's up to $100K credit, not all startups may use all of their credits. And this is not the cost to Google.

But nitpicking aside, why not have two tiers, one $100k for approved startups, and another with, say, $10k credit and with some support.

Google championed the idea that the road to classification success is a (relatively) simple algorithm paired with a lot of data. This way they could get hundreds, if not thousands of startups to hone their company success estimation algorithms.

fifthesteight• 12 years ago

My partner and I feel this way, but we often feel entirely alone in the opinion. It's refreshing to see it written here, knowing that there are others of this mindset.

cdnsteve• 12 years ago

But if moving off your current platform and to Google's worth it? One year goes fast.

jacquesm5• 12 years ago

It's moving the other way that will get you.

And that will likely wipe out any savings and then some.

sjuncal112• 12 years ago

Moving to GCP takes a bit of an idealogical shift, but moving off Google is pretty simple if you use AppScale. That might be the best option for these startups; take advantages of the free services from Google and move away after a year if you need to.

tim3335• 12 years ago

Yeah, there are some horror stories eg. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1927903

4 years old that, things may be better now.

noso• 12 years ago

"In an approved Accelerator, Incubator or VC fund"

I also think this is a load of baloney.

brudgers3• 12 years ago

Asking myself how this makes business sense. Answering myself that it only does if Google hits a homerun based on:

+ Vendor/plat-form lock-in.

+ Data mining startups' traffic.

+ Access to startups' code and data.

+ Ability to pull the plug.

For Vendor/Platform lock-in this could be virtual, ie the burden of switching the code base for administrative tasks to Amazon or Azure or some other provider could be prohibitive. Likewise for architectural layout.

In the bigger picture, is this a first foray into the space where MicroSoft Bizspark lives?

http://blog.codinghorror.com/content/images/uploads/2014/02/...

jedc3• 12 years ago

Points 2-4 would involve Google violating (likely) their own Ts&Cs with customers and (possibly?) state/federal law.

But I think your Point 1 is highly likely. How many startups are going to build on Google's Cloud Platform, then after a year port everything to AWS, particularly if Google can prove that they're cheaper or at least cost-competitive with similar feature set. (Assuming that's true, of course, and that you don't need something specific to AWS)

skj7• 12 years ago

Just to reinforce this... (I am a Google Cloud Platform engineer)

Google's internal data, which is mined (and audited), and the Cloud datacenters/data, are hosted entirely separately (though that's as much to protect us from you as you from us).

We do not do anything with data stored by cloud platform customers.

icebraining4• 12 years ago

How many startups are going to build on Google's Cloud Platform, then after a year port everything to AWS, particularly if Google can prove that they're cheaper or at least cost-competitive with similar feature set.

It's hardly lock-in if the reason for not leaving is "we're cheaper than the competition". That's just having a better offer.

ntakasaki• 12 years ago

Points 2-4 would involve Google violating (likely) their own Ts&Cs with customers and (possibly?) state/federal law

I don't think it does. Until recently, they seem to have been using the paid apps for Business e-mails to build advertising profiles with no repercussions.

http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2014/04/protecting-stud...

I also don't think there's anything in the T&Cs for Google Drive(both free and business) that says that they won't use the contents of the docs for advertising purposes.

sjuncal112• 12 years ago

That's a good point. I think Google recognizes the value their cloud platform brings to early startups and wants to put their fears to rest about costs (at least the initial $100k).

But startups could easily use AppScale to move off Google and on to AWS/Digital Ocean etc. when they start to get real traction or when the free credits run out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppScale

brudgers3• 12 years ago

Which of the terms and services do you think it would violate?

From the general terms and services:

   The rights you grant in this license are for the limited
   purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our
   Services, and to develop new ones. [1]

"To develop new [services]" covers a Google pretty well if it chooses to do any of the activities I mentioned.

In addition, the cloud services have this extension:

   Google may change these terms from time to time and post
   any modified terms at http://developers.google.com/site-
   terms. You understand and agree that if you use the 
   Service after the date on which these terms have 
   changed, Google will treat your use as acceptance of the 
   updated terms. [2]

It is not just that these terms are not subject to negotiation. It is that they place almost no limitation on Google's business practices.

[1] http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/

[2] https://developers.google.com/site-terms

swalsh• 12 years ago

Maybe it's different for the cloud platform, but while I love Google, and Google products, i'd never trust them to support my business. Support matters a lot, and Google hasn't established a good reputation there.

Azure is my choice for the moment.

erik1232• 12 years ago

I wonder what would be wrong with a few Digital Ocean or Kimsufi VPS or microserver systems? If managing your own server daemons is too hard, I wonder what that person is doing in the field of computing?

Goranek• 12 years ago

Trusting cheap vps company to host your business apps isn't a smart idea. Btw what makes you capable of deciding who should or shouldn't work in the field of computing?

tim3335• 12 years ago

Google and AWS provide a lot of things that Digital Ocean don't. Auto scaling to millions with Google, so much stuff with AWS that you can't keep track of it. (eg "Today, the AWS Marketplace contains more than 1,000 listings in 24 categories ranging from big data to bug-tracking to business intelligence"). That said for your typical startup with a small number of users the simpler providers may be the way to go.

iagooar• 12 years ago

So boostraped startups, like mine, that would need /profit from it the most, are explicitly excluded.

Well, Google, we didn't need your money anyway.

jacquesm5• 12 years ago

It's not money, it's credits.

steakejjs• 12 years ago

My biggest objection is the "approved VC" rule. Being from Washington DC, if I were to create a startup and get funding, am I on the approved list? I doubt they would have heard of the VCs out here (I don't know of many tech VCs).

Seems like it will be really easy for them just to pick big names, change/bend the rules for them to ensure they make a lot of money. It is good for their bottom line but bad for most out there.

raldi• 12 years ago

I doubt they would have heard of the VCs out here

Then those VCs should write to CloudPlatformStartups@google.com and get themselves added to the list.

jastanton• 12 years ago

Or you should just email them and state your case regardless of if you're on the list or not. Remember they are human beings on the receiving end of that email. I doubt they are getting swarmed by emails and wouldn't mind hearing from you. The worst thing that happens is they say no or ignore you and that's that.

skj7• 12 years ago

I doubt they are getting swarmed by emails

HAH!

and wouldn't mind hearing from you.

Probably not :)

ing33k• 12 years ago

The eligibility criteria is not something specific to Google .

Almost every cloud hosting provider has similar criteria, and I think it makes sense from their perspective that a Funded/ Accelerated startup is more likely to become a paid customer .

https://cloud.google.com/developers/startups/

http://aws.amazon.com/activate/portfolio-detail/

https://apply.rackspacestartups.com/apply

erik1232• 12 years ago

Focus on building your product and don't worry about complex infrastructure. Google manages your application, database, and storage servers so you don't have to.

Very seductive of simple minds. Congratulations, Google, you have discovered of how to start fishing for the bottom of the barrel ...

freakonom• 12 years ago

Between the lines: Google has calculated that

ExpectedLockinValue(given(ventureFunded)) + SillyPRBoost.value > ExpectedUsage($100k/yr)

Or, in other words, Google believes for the venture-funded cohort, giving you a $100k option now will set them up to take significantly more later. They also don't want to spend any effort administrating (vetting) this program.

I don't think this is confusing or insulting. Google's cards are plainly on the table, and as always they're here to make a profit.

skj7• 12 years ago

Yes, I think it's clear that this is not charity, but spending <=$100,000 on EXTREMELY well-targeted advertising.

jfasi• 12 years ago

Google gets a customer and free advertising, the company gets 100k worth of free computing resources. It's called a "win-win." It's not quite a "free lunch," but it's "one of the main ways in which healthy business gets done."

mtbcoder• 12 years ago

Not to nitpick, but the site states $100K for 1 year, which seems like a "use or lose" type deal. So if your start up doesn't burn through that much in hosting/storage/computing, you aren't really getting $100k in free computing resources.

fleaflicker• 12 years ago

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the most obvious (and innocuous) motivation: to expose young developers to google's cloud platform so that they'll be comfortable with it when they become big-time CTOs in a few years.

The network effects for cloud services are nowhere near as strong as they were for operating systems (end users don't care which underlying platform is used) but there is an advantage to having more developers familiar with your service.

bradleysmith• 12 years ago

This makes the most sense to me as motivation for this kind of give-away. Both familiarity to soon-to-be-promoted techs, as you said, and establish themselves as the system to migrate AWAY FROM.

To have the first $100k of server time's code written on their platform is not meaningless. Perhaps I'm a sub-par wizard, but host migrations are a very real pain point in my experience. With $100K's worth of time spent developing on Google's platform, that pain would be pretty well developed by the time a startup would get around to worrying about it.

god_bless_texas• 12 years ago

This is awesome, now AWS will offer $150,000 to use theirs with no accelerator requirement.

skj7• 12 years ago

Sounds like 150k in free bitcoins to whomever wants to jump on that deal, to me.

malanj• 12 years ago

This really speaks to Amazon's dominance in the space. Over the past year I've been approach by Google reps with increasingly insane offers of free hosting. This move seems to be a whole new level.

I still wonder "is it worth not doing something on Amazon?" $100k is a lot of money, but how much will most startups spend on hosting in the first year anyway? Unless you're specifically focused on infrastructure, in which case you probably won't choose your provider (i.e. the key partner in your business) based on free credit.

jacquesm5• 12 years ago

This is just a clever ploy to get the most promising start-ups locked in before they realize they're paying through the nose for a commodity.

And don't forget that it's credits not money.

You can't take this and spend it at leaseweb or digitalocean if that's your preferred way of solving things, nor will they pay you to dis-entangle from the lock-in once you want to move.

miles9325• 12 years ago

Help me see the lock-in: you run Docker containers on managed VM's, and if you want to move them somewhere else, well, you do. ?

jacquesm5• 12 years ago

Provisioning, scaling, storage.

Kurtz795• 12 years ago

Remember that you can start using the platform for free, today.

They have free daily quotas (I know for certain in the case of GAE, but I believe for the other services as well), which are kind of low, but good enough for proofs of concept and prototyping.

Still, this is a commercial product, and running it implies a cost to Google.

Thinking that they would give away 100K worth of services to anybody that asks for it is unrealistic.

skj7• 12 years ago

I don't believe there are any services other than GAE with free tiers.

Edit: someone mentioned bigquery, which I haven't verified but seems plausible.

stephenaevans• 12 years ago

This headline is pretty misleading. It should be Google Launches Cloud Platform for Startups That Are Part Of Approved Accelerators

wiradikusuma• 12 years ago

No international Accelerator/Incubator?

darklrd• 12 years ago

I wish bootstrapped startups were also eligible.

claudiusd• 12 years ago

Hmm... it seems like the data captured from a service like this would be very valuable to Google's venture arm. Even if they can't inspect the details of your environment, I'm sure they're still privy to metadata like resource utilization, deploy frequency, what stack you're on, etc. They'll be able to sort a bunch of early-stage startups on this information and cherry-pick the ones with the best characteristics without holding a single meeting.

ZenoArrow• 12 years ago

I'm not eligible, but this could still be positive for me... if it means Google Cloud starts supporting a greater range of programming languages. Right now the options are very limited compared to something like EC2.

vgt2• 12 years ago

You must be talking about AppEngine specifically, which is PaaS (Elastic Beanstalk is similar, and only supports a handful of languages as well).

Google Compute Engine doesn't have PaaS-like restrictions, much like EC2.

pmontra• 12 years ago

I'd say that if you want to fund a startup with $100,000 you go meet that startup and get to know it very well. Google is relying on somebody else to make that assessment so my guess is that the cost of those services to Google is much lower than those $100,000, maybe much much lower than that. They sure have unused capacity in their server farm, network, storage, etc. I'm not saying that they're doing an advertising stunt for free but $100,000 worth of anything doesn't necessarily means that $100,000 are leaving Google's pockets.

neilellis2• 12 years ago

I have to agree with a lot of the comments here, the very people who need the help. The ones who are doing it the hard way, striking out on their own and grafting on only their own money/debt could really do with a helping hand here and there.

But time after time we're disqualified because we're not in an incubator. Our businesses are our incubators, our customers are our incubators.

Why not woo us? Why not offer us some help so we get hooked into your products?

I'd love to see the stats on survival rates between bootstrapped and funded :-)

Come on guys, stop adding the 'approved accelerator' nonsense - startup != accelerator !

vgt2• 12 years ago

For all of you worried that this is for VC-backed startups only, Google offers $500 coupon codes (which should be plenty to bootstrap a concept). Feel free to ping me.

In addition, both AppEngine and BigQuery have free usage tiers.

neilellis2• 12 years ago

I'm not being snarky I honestly think you may misunderstand the term bootstrapping. We, for example, are not making a profit yet and would go through that ($500) in less than 3 weeks.

The only difference between bootstrapping and incubators is where the funding comes from.

fixedd• 12 years ago

Can I get $500 worth of Adwords? :)

glimmung2• 12 years ago

Offering a very large freebie to a relatively very small no. of "qualifying" start-ups all of whom already have a degree of mentoring and investment sends an interesting message about Google's world-view and objectives. If they'd offered a small freebie to a large number of much more liberally defined start-ups, I would have been much more impressed.

This has no relevance at all to my own modest start-up, but feels like a gratuitous poke in the eye, and makes me think less of Google for having a tin ear. I'm sure that they've teased and disappointed many more people with that headline than this programme will help.

wj3• 12 years ago

The did offer Google Apps for Business for free for years to anybody who called themselves a business.

You can still use almost all of their services for your business (Drive, Apps, Gmail) for free. They'll even give you a free phone number and voicemail box.

I'd call all of that more than a small freebie.

glimmung2• 12 years ago

Sure - and I've used many of those facilities (still am, in fact), and I appreciate them.

My intended point was really their miscommunication here - they exclude well over 99% of the organisations that consider themselves start-ups, and so the headline sets many up for disappointment. A better choice of wording would have sent a very different message.

Shtirlic• 12 years ago

I think Google want to buy successful projects running already in their infrastructure, because integration steps are lengthy and hard in big companies.

seanmccann• 12 years ago

The "less than $500k in revenue" requirement is more limiting than one would think.

dp2web• 12 years ago

Looks more like an act of desperation due to the fact that Google is quickly losing the cloud wars to Microsoft, Amazon & VMWare.

Google Launches Cloud Platform for Startups

Related Stories