[directionless]

This feels like a somewhat narrow and biased comparison. It is focused around getting startup credits, and while that's important, I think it's a very limited view of onboarding.

Better would be to think about what the general initial usability of these services are. How easy is it to spin up the compute load? Create reasonable IAM policies? Debug problems?

My own experience (and bias) is that while AWS has vastly more features, GCP is much more usable. The latter feels like a coherent setup with projects and IAM. AWS always has a surprisingly amount of work around org accounts and IAM setups.

So maybe it's faster to get AWS credits, but it's much harder to make use of them.

[epiphytegreg]

I agree, post is very focused on customer support and getting the credits, not at all on product usability. I didn't start building on either AWS or GCP with the expectation I'd have a human to talk to, and from that perspective, GCP was much, much more usable. I found (and find) AWS's interfaces and documentation to be a maze.

[tidepod12]

>The latter feels like a coherent setup with projects and IAM. AWS always has a surprisingly amount of work around org accounts and IAM setups.

AWS Organizations is atrocious compared to GCP projects. I truly do not understand how/why AWS is doubling down on the awful user experience of Organizations, cross-account access, creating multiple accounts, etc. It's truly the antithesis of customer obsession and yet they show no signs of moving away from that model. And not only is the user experience bad, it also just feels hacky. AWS Organizations and Control Tower feel like poorly applied band-aids rather than real solutions.

I actually prefer AWS to GCP in most respects, but the AWS Organizations shitshow is something I can't personally get over.