As someone who worked at a company that used almost all of the GCP products, I agree with just about everything in this article. GCP is pretty amazing (and simple) to deal with. They offer so many features that work very well within their platform. They have a similar 99.95% SLA on most of their services, and they often automatically apply credits for missed SLAs (YMMV, this may only apply when you have account reps paying attention).
The major downsides that I've noticed are:
1) Documentation is lacking (but improving!)
2) Issues that aren't affecting a lot of customers can sometimes take a long time to resolve.
3) Many services (including App Engine Flexible Environments) are still in beta, meaning no SLA, and they recommend against using them in prod. Unless you have a big paid support contract you'll have no clue how soon (if ever) things will reach GA.
I agree with all of your point except for the beta woes. If I'm building a production product I would much rather they be upfront about when products are still "beta" and under heavy development as opposed to shipping a buggy and unreliable product that I only realize is in that state after I stick x GB of data in it or start making x req/s.
For example at a previous job we were "early" adopters of Amazon Redshift and it gave us no end of troubles. That should definitely be labeled "beta" until they sort those issues out.
The major downsides that I've noticed are: 1) Documentation is lacking (but improving!) 2) Issues that aren't affecting a lot of customers can sometimes take a long time to resolve. 3) Many services (including App Engine Flexible Environments) are still in beta, meaning no SLA, and they recommend against using them in prod. Unless you have a big paid support contract you'll have no clue how soon (if ever) things will reach GA.