[jrockway]

Google seems to have adopted the simpler naming scheme ("Cloud Storage", "Cloud SQL", etc.) and it honestly doesn't help much. Imagine you have some application that can write to various providers' object storage implementation. The user has to configure that somehow, and what do you call the configuration keys? In the AWS case, it's easy -- "S3_BUCKET". With Google, you end up having to use an incredibly long name. "STORAGE_BUCKET" -- too general. "CLOUD_STORAGE_BUCKET" -- too general (there are many clouds). "GOOGLE_CLOUD_STORAGE_BUCKET" -- there you go. Type that in all caps without a typo. (It's unclear to me whether or not "GCS" is an acceptable acronym for Cloud Storage. I think I use "GCS_BUCKET", but I'm also pretty sure I just made that up.)

Google's acronyms also just all blend together for me. GCP has GKE which uses GCE instances. The entropy is not high enough for me to parse that unless I pronounce every word that the letter is standing in for. Meanwhile, "AWS has EKS which uses EC2 instances". More entropy, more comprehensible.

I don't think any of this really matters much, but I also don't think that being generic and simple is necessarily the end game.