geoSurge <> Google Cloud stakeholder record

One year-plus of goodwill, restarts, handoffs, and no accountable owner.

This page compiles the email and meeting history behind geoSurge's Google Cloud engagement. It is written for an AWS migration discussion: the core issue is stakeholder churn, repeated re-discovery, slow execution, and the resulting need to plan a move away from GCP.

15+ moCloud partnership discussions since March / April 2025.
8+Google stakeholders involved across handoffs and restarts.
5Major ownership changes or expansions before a stable path emerged.
NowgeoSurge is engaging migration consultants to evaluate AWS execution.

AWS Meeting Context

This is not a last-minute vendor comparison. geoSurge spent more than a year trying to make Google Cloud work, but the relationship became a process and execution risk.

geoSurge engaged in good faith. The company repeatedly gave Google strategic context, product demos, architecture detail, fundraising context, AI workload detail, and executive time.

Google repeatedly restarted discovery. Each stakeholder transition created another round of context-setting rather than producing a stable execution path.

The problem became operational trust. Even when Google introduced senior people, the account motion kept changing and no owner carried the relationship from context to action.

geoSurge is now preparing migration options. The current path is to engage consultants to plan a move away from GCP and evaluate AWS as the execution partner.

Google pattern Multiple owners, repeated introductions, changing priorities, and no stable operating rhythm across the relationship.
geoSurge cost Executive time spent re-explaining the business, product, workload, migration constraints, and urgency to new Google participants.
AWS position Clear opportunity to become the migration partner with a stable owner, practical technical support, and a faster execution path.
geoSurge response Proceed with migration planning and use consultants to de-risk architecture, implementation timeline, and workload transfer.

Interactive Timeline

Filter by stakeholder to see how ownership shifted and how geoSurge repeatedly responded to changes by re-explaining context, providing more detail, and keeping Google in the process.

Mar / Apr 2025
EmailOpening

Partnership discussions begin with Google Cloud.

geoSurge starts discussions with James Massey around GCP support and the AI-first startup motion. The early conversation frames Google as a potential strategic infrastructure partner, not just another cloud vendor.

Evidence details
Email threads show follow-ups, forms, and escalation attempts. This was the first point where Google had the opportunity to convert interest into an executable partnership.
24 Apr 2025
MeetingStrategic fit

Google discusses a broader strategic partnership path.

On a recorded call, James describes a path through Google's startup and AI programs, with potential to build something more tailored if geoSurge's usage requires deeper support.

Evidence details
The call included discussion of Vertex, Gemini, Claude and DeepSeek through Vertex, GPU limitations, and larger strategic structures. geoSurge made clear that infrastructure choices were being made and that Google could become the long-term platform.
May / Jun 2025
DelayFollow-up

Momentum stalls after the initial strategic conversations.

geoSurge follows up repeatedly after the initial engagement. The expected next steps, including senior introductions and a clearer operating plan, do not materialize quickly.

Stakeholder impact
From geoSurge's perspective, the company had already invested executive time and shared enough context for Google to act. Instead, the process drifted and created the first loss of confidence.
16-23 Jun 2025
HandoffRestart

James changes roles; Mike Adebiyi is introduced.

Google explains that there have been changes, and Mike is brought into the relationship. The practical effect is a reset: geoSurge has to re-explain the strategic context and urgency.

Evidence details
In the June 23 meeting, Mike says James moved into a different role and that he is taking over. geoSurge states that Google has dropped the ball and that infrastructure decisions have been held while waiting for Google.
23 Jun 2025
MeetingRe-discovery

geoSurge re-explains the opportunity and the lost time.

Mike asks to hear the story directly. geoSurge explains that it has already been waiting around three months, that decisions are being delayed, and that Google has moved backwards into discovery instead of forwards into execution.

Evidence details
geoSurge describes a VC-backed company, one of the largest rounds in Europe, looking for a meaningful strategic partner. Mike says he can create a next-step proposal and send it that evening.
26 Jun 2025
In-personStrategic pitch

geoSurge presents the product, AI workload, and why Google should win.

In person, geoSurge demos its GEO product, explains million-query scale, data value, model workload, and why Google's stack is strategically attractive. The ask is clear: shared risk, practical technical support, GTM help, and partnership.

Stakeholder impact
Google acknowledges the desire to build a real partnership and says the team needs to digest. geoSurge again responds constructively to Google's process by providing more detail and strategic framing.
11 Jul 2025
Senior meetingStrategic review

Senior Google stakeholders are brought in.

James Rosenthal, Emily Ford, Mike Adebiyi, Fabian Desnoes and others join a broader conversation. geoSurge again explains the company, funding, product, strategic dataset, compute needs, token needs, and why Google is well placed to support the business.

Evidence details
James Rosenthal introduces his role across global partnerships and strategic companies. Google discusses possible internal demand, licensing, corp dev, equity investment, GTM, and pulling in the right teams. geoSurge sends the fundraising deck afterward.
14 Jul 2025
DebriefInternal approval

Google acknowledges the relationship would need senior approval.

Mike explains that a non-standard partnership path would be difficult, that only a small number of startups would receive this kind of attention, and that senior approval may be required.

Stakeholder impact
The conversation shifts from strategic intent to internal approval complexity. geoSurge attempts to make the structure workable, but the process remains dependent on Google's internal alignment.
Jul / Aug 2025
Technical supportQuota

GPU quota and capacity discussions move in parallel.

geoSurge raises quota and GPU requirements for its project. Fabian clarifies that quota does not guarantee capacity and asks about reservations, Dynamic Workload Scheduler, and related options.

Stakeholder impact
This reinforces that geoSurge's need was practical and immediate, not theoretical. The company needed a cloud partner able to make compute access and technical support executable.
Mar / Apr 2026
Re-engagementUsage clarity

geoSurge re-engages after moving more usage onto Vertex AI.

After adopting Vertex AI based on Google's recommendation, geoSurge has a clearer GCP usage profile and asks to reopen the partnership discussion.

Evidence details
This removes one of Google's earlier objections: unclear usage. geoSurge comes back with actual GCP workload evidence and renewed willingness to make Google work.
1 May 2026
MeetingAnother reset

Gabby Rothman-Shaw joins; geoSurge explains the full history again.

Gabby is introduced as an Account Director focused on hyperscale startups. geoSurge explains the love/hate history with Google, the prior promises, role changes, AWS support, current Vertex migration, and the need for practical execution.

Stakeholder impact
Despite clearer usage and repeated strategic context, Google still cannot provide a concrete path on the call and asks for more information to take internally.
May / Jun 2026
Data requestAWS CUR

Google asks for additional AWS-side data in a specific format.

Mike requests AWS Cost and Usage Report data. geoSurge explains that extracting and packaging this is not a good use of the team's time. Mike initially says this is the only way he knows to proceed, then later sends CLI steps.

Evidence details
geoSurge replies that the discussion started a year earlier and that the current GCP workload is now clear. The request for still more data becomes a symbol of process failure.
24 Jun 2026
Current emailProcess conclusion

Google's latest response arrives through a new stakeholder.

The latest response comes through Elliott, with Gabby and Amber included. From geoSurge's perspective, this confirms the pattern: yet another participant enters after more than a year of context sharing.

Process readout
After more than a year of goodwill, stakeholder time, product demos, technical context, and repeated re-engagement, geoSurge no longer sees Google as a reliable execution partner. Migration planning is now the practical next step.

Stakeholder Map

The repeated stakeholder movement is central to the AWS discussion: every handoff required geoSurge to restate context while Google delayed a concrete execution path.

JM

James Massey

Initial Google Cloud contact

Opened the relationship, discussed AI-first startup support, possible strategic structure, and senior introductions. Momentum slowed before a clear executable path appeared.

MA

Mike Adebiyi

Took over after James changed roles

Restarted discovery, joined product and partnership meetings, discussed non-standard structures, later requested AWS-side usage exports and sent CLI steps.

JR

James Rosenthal

Senior strategic partnerships

Joined the July 2025 senior meeting, discussed potential strategic angles including internal Google teams, licensing, corp dev, and broader Alphabet access.

EF

Emily Ford

Senior Google participant

Joined strategic discussion where Google asked for the case behind deeper investment and explored whether geoSurge's product could matter to Google teams.

FD

Fabian Desnoes

Technical / quota support

Handled GPU quota and capacity questions, clarifying that quota and actual capacity were separate and that reservations or workload scheduling might be needed.

GR

Gabby Rothman-Shaw

Account Director, hyperscale startups

Joined the 2026 re-engagement, heard the full history, positioned Google as more strategic than AWS, but still required more internal review and more data.

EM

Elliott / Amber

Latest Google email thread

Entered the discussion at the latest stage, reinforcing the sense that the relationship kept moving to new participants instead of converging on accountable execution.

Failure Patterns

These are the recurring themes that support a firm response and justify beginning migration planning.

Owner churnGoogle moved from James to Mike to senior stakeholders to Gabby to Elliott, with no single accountable owner carrying the relationship through to execution.
Repeated discoverygeoSurge repeatedly re-explained the same company, workload, funding, product, and urgency instead of moving toward a concrete migration-safe plan.
Data escalationEven after GCP usage became clear, Google asked for AWS-side exports in a specific format, creating more operational burden for geoSurge.
Execution riskThe account motion did not match the strategic narrative Google repeatedly used, making AWS migration planning the more credible path.

AWS Meeting Brief

Copyable talking points for explaining why geoSurge is seriously evaluating AWS migration support.

AWS meeting context

geoSurge has not arrived at AWS because of a quick procurement exercise. We spent more than a year trying to make Google Cloud work as a strategic infrastructure partner.

The recurring problem has been execution, not interest. Google introduced multiple stakeholders over time: James Massey, Mike Adebiyi, James Rosenthal, Emily Ford, Fabian Desnoes, Gabby Rothman-Shaw, Elliott and Amber. Each change created another cycle of context-setting.

We repeatedly explained the same business, product, architecture, AI workload, funding context, and urgency. Google meetings often felt like restarts rather than forward motion.

The relationship expanded to senior and technical stakeholders, but no single accountable owner carried the work from strategic discussion into a practical execution plan.

That stakeholder churn has reduced our confidence in GCP as a long-term operating partner. We need a cloud partner that can move quickly, assign clear ownership, help de-risk migration, and provide practical technical support.

We are now engaging consultants to evaluate and plan a migration away from GCP. The AWS discussion is about execution: how quickly we can move, what support is available, how to reduce migration risk, and what a serious partnership cadence would look like.