Am using it at current client. It's very good. GKE is absolutely brilliant, and some of the other stuff is also great.
On the other hand, some stuff is not quite there yet. The metadata server to handle instance/pod IAM (i.e. Workload Identity) is wobbly at best. To be fair, it's in beta - but then most of their offerings seem to be - which then means you can't rely on it for business-critical applications since it may wobble at the wrong time and there's no SLA.
This is just one example off the top of my head - I'm on holiday and not making massive mental effort to remember work. :)
AWS is still my preferred cloud provider. Their APIs can be daunting at times and you have to build off many lower level concepts until you get something working but when you do it tends to be rock solid - and under your control. I prefer their approach of giving you the best lowest level services to build on, and then building on top of those themselves for those who want more abstraction than the Google way of "we're building something you'll want to use - we'll tell you when it's available but it will probably be another year or two until it's GA and covered by any SLA."
An "order of magnitude superior" is generally the minimum that causes me to start expending engineering effort to move from something implemented and nominally working to something unfamiliar and unimplemented.
10% savings is almost never worth engineering effort. Those engineers are probably worth more than 10% by implementing features or fixing a bug for a customer.
However, even if 10% savings is $1 million, the edge odds probably still aren't in your favor. You may burn engineering time and the project fails or takes 3 times as long. Those engineers are effectively "dead" during that time and whatever contribution they could have made elsewhere is lost. For some reason, nobody ever factors that into their "savings projections".
Obviously, if I've reached the point that 10% savings is $10 million, I'm in a different bucket. But having $100 million in cloud spend probably indicates a lot more problems than AWS vs GCP.
On the other hand, some stuff is not quite there yet. The metadata server to handle instance/pod IAM (i.e. Workload Identity) is wobbly at best. To be fair, it's in beta - but then most of their offerings seem to be - which then means you can't rely on it for business-critical applications since it may wobble at the wrong time and there's no SLA.
This is just one example off the top of my head - I'm on holiday and not making massive mental effort to remember work. :)
AWS is still my preferred cloud provider. Their APIs can be daunting at times and you have to build off many lower level concepts until you get something working but when you do it tends to be rock solid - and under your control. I prefer their approach of giving you the best lowest level services to build on, and then building on top of those themselves for those who want more abstraction than the Google way of "we're building something you'll want to use - we'll tell you when it's available but it will probably be another year or two until it's GA and covered by any SLA."