But I think the morality is to never put all your eggs in the same basket, because any of them can fail for external reasons — e.g. horror stories about people locked out of any service because payments failed due to some stupid action by their bank; months to fix issues... don't be that guy/business with a single point of failure.
So, contingency plans, and a healthy distribution of your flows.
Have several banks/cards, several clouds, front load balance with a cross-platform HA solution, then for everything behind peg providers against each other; optimize for cost or convenience or whatever.
This is the resilient way; and possibly even antifragile as you develop new synergies in this meta-space. It also sends a message that interop is value to you, to the market.
When you operate at that level, there may be room for GC in your system — typically where you can afford it to fail / disappear but it's better/cheaper as long as it lives. You're already ready for the day it dies, because you make that risk assessment a parameter in your arch.
It's bad enough that we use G Suite and that's vulnerable to this. But a cloud lockout, with tooling built for a specific cloud, database restores required, etc. would be a whole different level of devastating. I almost have an obligation to shareholders to steer clear of them just because of that.
The "Google has no support folks which can be reached" for GCP isn't applicable here.
All of your vendors are just as responsive.
People are quick to grab their pitchforks.
Cloud has extensive support, on par with AWS and Azure.
Google isn't a monolithic entity. It doesn't have a single "culture" of being anti-support. Rather, support policies are tied to individual product areas.
I agree, support may be lacking for the Pixel, certainly nothing anywhere near Apple's excellent support. But again, zero to do with Cloud.
It's literally as silly as saying you won't use AWS because Amazon won't give you a refund on a shirt you ordered.
The whole point of branding is that people expect similar levels of quality for products under the same brand. Google wants the positive effects of using it's name on everything, but leaves it totally up to the end user to figure out which services will deign to let you speak to a real live human when you run into trouble.
Amazon is obsessively focused on keeping customers happy and will bend over backward to do so. Google does not have a similar reputation or history.
Edit to add: if the customers have a choice. Telecoms do just fine because there's not really an option that will make you happy.
Amazon is able to scale 'making customers happy' fairly well.
It is all about the company's priorities and the direction that the leaders steer the company. Perverse incentives reap perverse rewards.
Amazon won't cancel my AWS service because they don't like the shirt I ordered.
Having personally lost a Google account, the risk of using them for something business critical seems epic.
Garbage.
For what it's worth, the 3 AZs requirement is their internal policy as well, and they intentionally run exercises where they randomly shut down important looking data centers to verify that failover is working correctly.
If you haven't set up your application to continue working if the plug is pulled on the data center, there is a non-zero chance that it will be shut down due to intentional action.
To be fair, there is also a non-zero chance that it will be shut down due to other people's actions. My two favorite examples are, "Gypsies stole the cables to the data center so that they could sell the metal in it" and "Hunters used the shiny supports for the cables for target practice." These happened in Eastern Europe and Oregon respectively.
On the flip side, their tools make it really easy to have your software run extremely robustly. Even if Gypsies or hunters attempt to ruin your day.
No notice. No warning. No email or call. Just bam - your infrastructure is offline.
[1] https://medium.com/@serverpunch/why-you-should-not-use-googl...
Now maybe they've gotten better. But this was only a year ago. You have to at least acknowledge that they are quite frequently not at all on par with organizations known for customer service in this time such as Microsoft.