30gd4n

Doubt sincerly any exec or manager ever belived the easier and cheaper motto !

In opposition to what has been said in this thread their IT teams are very good and have raised (in vain) warnings against GCP since the beginning.

The official motivations for the GCP move as given to us, plebs (already mentionned in other comms) : - Financial move from CAPEX model (hosting own DC) to OPEX. - Transfer of responsability in case of fail; you can charge ($$$) GCP for downtime, could't really do that on your own teams. - Focus on business value and not on IT. (IMHO all of them are wrong, beginnig with the last one : you design & assemble planes on computers; IT is obviously part of your core business model, even a strategic one !).

And about the why GCP vs a french local actor the answer was because of tech maturity.

The 'easy and cheaper' is tech propaganda, this never was part of debate simply because it's false and we all know it, even the high execs in their ivory tower. Same thing as AI : haven't seen any big EU firm lay off big chunk of people to replace them with IA whereas in the US all the big ones already fired AND got the people back; US believes in it's own propaganda, EU doesn't ! Noone here thought we could fire sysadmins by moving services to CSPs, that always seemed like fake ad and reality is here to prove us right !

More adequate question would be why did Airbus go GCP instead of pushing a local french actor like OVH, Clever or Scale, decison that seemed right all along and that is eventually in place ? The answer is because of the bribe ex-CEO took !

And about espionage there's not much to spy on : no new plane ongoing, no fancy tech detained by Airbus, all the tech is the suppliers, Airbus is only an assembler. To prove my point see chinese aviation : it's been 20years we litteraly gave them the A320 and they are still far from producing anything of their own, they barely managed to have that copy called Comac flying !

'People buy cars to drive them' : how long did you own your last EV car ? enough to pass the limit for the EV to become interesting ? You think all Tesla & BYD owners do that ? Don't think so ! So in the end your ownership (and 95% of the other) of an EV was more CO2 intensive than equivalent ICE because you don't keep it enough to become efficient. And don't talk about second hand use because this is clearly not the way our society is going; it's all about buying new stuff and changing cars every couple of years; huge hyprocrisy when you say that EVs need time to become more efficient than ICE.

'I'm sorry you can't be bothered to read your own link. This is in the footnotes as a source for it:' just click on the damn link, use google trad, find the paper and READ (not just troll as if I didn't) the recycling chapter by yourself ! It does not include real-world data, it's theoretical/research data IF batteries were recycled in EU/US with up to date processes. As of today 2025 all batteries are 'recycled' (joke..) in China/India by underqualified people with a CO2 cost WAY higher and this is NOT taken into account in the study. So yeah I'll say again : real recycling, the one we do right now IS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR !

Useless discussion anyway, you don't add any argument or source, just trolling on my words, nice !