It doesn’t have to be this way, but that’s partly a matter of culture. By aspiring to present/think/act as a monoplatform, Google risks substantially increasing the blast radius of individual component failure. A global quota system mediating every other service sounds both totally on brand, and also the antithesis of everything I learned about public cloud scaling at AWS. There we made jokes, that weren’t jokes, about service teams essentially DoS’ing each other, and this being the natural order of things that every service must simply be resilient to and scale for.

Having been impressed upon by that mindset, my design reflex is instead to aim for elimination of global dependencies entirely, rather than globally rate-limiting the impact of a global rate-limiter.

I’m not saying either is a right answer, but that there are consequences to being true to your philosophy. There are upsides, too, with Google’s integrated approach, notable particularly when you build end-to-end systems from public cloud service portfolios and benefit from consistency in product design, something AWS eschews in favour of sometimes radical diversity. I see these emergent properties of each as an inevitability, a kind of generalised Conway’s Law.