How they're using GCP probably varies a ton. A lot of places are doing multi-cloud for risk mitigation. Maybe some are using it for Kubernetes workloads that they can spread across public/private clouds. Probably a lot like the PaaS products like Firebase for prototyping. I haven't seen any shops that have bet the farm on GCP the way they do on AWS or Azure.
> I haven't seen any shops that have bet the farm on GCP the way they do on AWS or Azure.
Your examples sound a bit biased. Based on your argument, using GCP as part of a multi-cloud solution for risk mitigation could also imply that those clients don't trust AWS or Assure to provide a reliable service, thus they are compelled to use GCP for reliability. Using Kubernetes workloads means that GCP is trusted above any other competing offer to provide a fundamental service. Using GCP's PaaS offers means that GCP is able to better fulfill the client's needs with their enticing higher-level services. Your hypothetical claims ring as true as there statements, but your bias points in a different direction.
You work for Google or something? I've been in an out of a ton of IT departments and I'm just reporting what I've seen. I've honestly never done a real evaluation of GCP as a whole. Only Firebase. From what I've seen first-hand, AWS is the default choice. Azure has substantial market share, particularly among orgs that are already bought into the Microsoft stack. GCP just doesn't have a strong story to tell. I should also say that I pretty commonly see senior IT decision makers just make arbitrary decisions.
> You work for Google or something? I've been in an out of a ton of IT departments and I'm just reporting what I've seen.
I don't work for google, nor does your attempt to switch to personal attacks change any of the points I made. In fact not only do your assertions sound heavily biased, you now admit that you never done a real evaluation of a service you're criticising. Frankly I don't care if X or Y has more market share, but people making baseless assertions regarding stuff they have no experience or knowledge in simply add noise to a discussion that's expected to be insightful.
I didn't say anything about GCP's quality and I don't know why you think I'm demeaning it. I'm just saying I have not seen any IT org that was heavily invested. I have seen a bunch using this or that feature (Firebase or AI/ML services) enough to be mentioned as a client but none that use it as their primary infrastructure. My point being that just because they have an impressive list of clients doesn't mean they're winning anything. And winning is not necessarily correlated to the quality of their product.
