One year-plus of goodwill, restarts, handoffs, and no executable partnership.

Hi Elliott,

Thank you for the note and for sharing the proposed structure.

I want to be very direct: this offer is not remotely competitive, and it does not reflect the history of our discussions with Google. After more than a year of engagement, a $500k one-year commitment with $150k of credits released only after spend milestones is materially inferior to what AWS is offering us. It also does not solve the problem we have been explaining to Google since the beginning.

I am sharing the attached timeline because I want the record to be clear. We have engaged with Google in good faith for a long time. I have repeatedly tried to keep GCP in the conversation internally, despite AWS being easier for us commercially and operationally. But the process with Google has been fragmented, slow, and increasingly difficult to trust.

Since March / April 2025, we have gone from James Massey to Mike Adebiyi, then to James Rosenthal, Emily Ford and Fabian Desnoes, then to Gabby Rothman-Shaw, and now to you and Amber. Each transition has required us to restate the same context: who we are, why our workload matters, why Google is strategically well placed to support us, what we are spending, what we expect to spend, and why we need front-loaded support rather than a transactional vendor relationship.

We have had calls, product demos, senior meetings, quota discussions, fundraising context, Vertex AI migration discussions, and repeated requests for additional data. We moved more usage through Vertex AI, gave Google a clearer view of our current GCP spend, explained our expected growth, and continued to make the case internally for Google.

The result, after all of that, is still a weak transactional proposal and another request for AWS billing detail.

At this point, the problem is no longer just commercial. We have lost confidence in Google's ability to execute as a partner. The stakeholder changes, shifting priorities, repeated re-discovery, and continuing requests for more information have made it very hard to trust that Google can move at the pace we need.

We are now engaging consultants to help us plan a migration away from GCP. That is not the outcome I wanted. I have spent significant internal political capital trying to make Google work. But based on the process so far and the offer now on the table, I cannot credibly recommend Google as the right infrastructure partner for geoSurge.

AWS is offering us a materially better path, both commercially and operationally. Google's current offer is not in the same category.

If Google wants to remain in the conversation, the offer needs to change materially and immediately. It needs to reflect the strategic nature of the opportunity, the time we have already invested, our current and expected scale of spend, and the fact that AWS is actively giving us a stronger reason to migrate.

Otherwise, I think we should stop spending cycles here.

Best,
Francisco