What Google Cloud is
Google's rented computing. Smaller than AWS and Azure in breadth, and stronger in two specific areas: data analysis and containers, both of which come out of how Google runs its own systems.
Chosen when the analytics and data work are the centre of the project, or when your organisation already runs on Google Workspace.
It's the one we recommend for a specific reason rather than by default.
BigQuery handles reporting over large datasets without you running a database cluster to do it.
Cloud Run takes a container and serves it, scaling to zero, which suits services with uneven traffic.
If your staff already sign in with Google, internal tools get access control almost free.
A strong global network, which shows up as latency for users far from your servers.
BigQuery is the reason most of our Google Cloud work exists. Getting your data into it and keeping it current is the job.
A warehouse plus something to look at it with, so the numbers arrive in front of the people who make decisions rather than in a query console.
Google's Kubernetes has been the most polished for years. Worth it when you genuinely need Kubernetes and overkill when you don't.
Vision, language and translation as an API, wired into an existing application rather than built from scratch.
Cloud Run for services that are idle most of the day and busy occasionally, where paying per request beats paying per hour.
Written for someone deciding, not for someone who already knows. Skip it if you do.
Google's rented computing. Smaller than AWS and Azure in breadth, and stronger in two specific areas: data analysis and containers, both of which come out of how Google runs its own systems.
BigQuery, usually. It answers questions over enormous datasets in seconds with no cluster to manage, and there's no straightforward equivalent elsewhere. If your problem is analytical, that one service can decide the platform.
Kubernetes. Google originated it, and their managed version is the least painful way to run it. That matters only if you actually need Kubernetes, which fewer teams do than believe they do.
Fewer services, a smaller partner ecosystem, and a reputation for retiring products that makes some organisations wary. Worth weighing if you want a single provider for everything rather than the best tool for one job.
The clearest case for a warehouse. The work usually pays for itself in recovered hours before it pays for itself in insight.
Almost always queries scanning far more than they need. Partitioning and clustering fix it and take days, not weeks.
A common over-reach. Cloud Run does the same job with a fraction of the operational burden, and we'll say when that's the honest answer.
Mainly for data. If reporting over large volumes is central, BigQuery is a genuine advantage. If your staff already use Google Workspace, internal access is simpler too.
For the services most projects need, yes. AWS has a wider catalogue, though most of that catalogue is irrelevant to any single project.
We can, and usually advise against it. Two clouds means two sets of everything to operate, and the resilience gained is rarely worth it below a certain size.
Only if data analysis is central to what you do. Otherwise use it for the part it's best at and host the application wherever is cheapest and simplest.
It can be, and it's nearly always the query rather than the storage. Structured properly, most workloads cost far less than people expect.
A few lines are enough to start. You get a reply within two working days.