I cannot agree with that. Google Cloud services are way too small comparing to AWS or Azure and they don't make a lot of money with it. They can discontinue it easily.
It's not going anywhere.
I see this being thrown around here a lot. Buying into Google's PR is what this is. If you've valid points apart from BigQuery vs RedShift, I'd request you to enumerate them for me.
I have personally interacted with Googlers who lament the fact that 'no one internally bothers using most of GCP' and hence not being able to 'iterate/innovate as fast as AWS' is a key disadvantage despite their 'superior offerings', whatever that means.
Really? Have you actually used it or done any research?
1. Container Engine = built on kubernetes, faster and easier than the others
2. Compute Engine = VMs start faster, customizable rather than set sizes, live migration when the host has maintenance or starts to fail, NVME SSDs available with < 1ms latency
3. Networking = faster and more consistent performance, all the regions are connected which makes cross-regional/global deployments easier and more secure
4. Load balancing = actually routes the traffic automatically to the closest region and spills over based on capacity, not just DNS junk like the rest, no warmup or latency issues
5. CDN interconnects = cheaper bandwidth and lower latency using their partner CDN networks
6. Pub/Sub = great message system that doesnt need shards or anything to deal with for scaling, supports multiple subscribers and acks
7. gcloud = best shell access available to interact with pretty much everything, no keys or passwords to worry about
8. grpc APIs, fast storage/nearline, bigtable/datastore/cloud sql, Vision API, etc
Yes it's still new and there are a few frustrating issues, and AWS and Azure do have lots of products and their own special offerings, but the core Google platform is the amazing at running a bunch of servers/containers for a globally distributed app with high performance. We've tried them all and GCP has been the best so far.
They all have their own proprietary services which are valuable but it's completely your choice to use them.
Never liked the downvoting idea, but if it must be, then it would be nice if people were at least required to comment while downvoting and open themselves to downvotes for their whacked, baseless downvotes.
AWS has a head start and a great product catalog, Azure has the windows/office/server ecosystem, but Google has been doing scaled computing for a very long time and has contributed to many of the innovations in the industry. Although they're newer with less features, what they do have is more advanced and the Google name carries a lot of weight and reputation.
Most corporations are still focused on just moving over to IaaS with compliance and security first and Google has done a great job building a solid foundation for this which should pay dividends in the future.
Yes but my point is AWS has more mindshare and MS has more leverageable pre-existing business inroads with a huge number of these corporations.
> and Google has done a great job building a solid foundation for this which should pay dividends in the future
That seems rational, but the countless examples of "worse is better" in life indicate that that outcome is far from guaranteed.