Google documents didn't show that a day or two ago. A third-party article quoting only unnamed sources made claims about Google's thinking early last year before several executive hiring and other actions which show some real serious effort towads GCP's success, and which claims Google has officially said were "not accurate".
I wish Google were making a clearer public push to make their actual plans widely known, but they've long been bad at PR, so I don't read anything into it either way.
(Disclaimer: I used to work for Google, including the GCP team, but I haven't done so since early 2015 and do not have firsthand authoritative knowledge on the accuracy of the allegations from the article - I don't need insider knowledge to know that the public record is currently ambiguous. I'm certainly not speaking for Google here.)
You’re getting downvoted because it’s a lazy, value-free trolling post with no supporting information or analysis. For example, you could explain why you think a strategic paid service contracted to large organizations is likely to have the same lifespan as a free consumer service without a good revenue model.
In addition to your reasons, I also downvoted the comment because it is completely irrelevant; whether or not GCP might someday be shut down has nothing at all to do with security best practices on the platform.
If you wanted to discuss GCP's likelihood of sticking around, this top story from earlier this week would have been an appropriate place: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21815260
