I'm not at all, that example was pulled at random as an example.
> Its hard for a single solution to serve 100% of customer needs. That why they suggest tools.
It would be hard to describe just how custom of a solution my company would need. My company certainly likes to do things in a unique way. However there is a huge grey area between "here is a specific product that doesn't quite fit your needs" and "here are the blocks you need to build a custom solution on your own". That grey area is filled with money.
> I would love to know if there are better alternatives for services like ...
Don't underestimate the ability of large enterprise to roll their own. It isn't like Google is the only company that can build a message queue or a load balancer. Nor are they the only game in town selling them. This is a time to remember: The customer is always right. You and I may think that "Google is the best" but my manager wants what my manager wants. We may select a lesser solution simply because the support is significantly better. And that support should be vertically integrated. If we have support for pub sub, support for big query but not support for the integration between them ... that is a drawback.
> Speaking about cost, its all flat rate
Not really. For example data flow is based on the size of machine you are running (plus some extra percentage for the service), pub sub is based on number of events, big query is based on query time + egress, etc. I probably still have the spreadsheet I used to try to get a handle on costs kicking around somewhere. "Flat rate" does not describe the monstrosity that is that spreadsheet.
I totally understand that some people don't understand the enterprise mentality. I'm not trying to defend it - maybe just give a small view into it. Now that I live in it, I may not agree with it, but I understand it. Google doesn't.