I'm always surprised that comparisons like this with AWS miss the fundamental philosophical approach of the cloud offerings.
AWS is "infrastructure as a service". Hosts, network switches, load balancers - things that historically cost an arm and a leg, but they could virtualize. Add some elasticity and auto scaling, and you've got the foundation to build anything else on top.
The hyper-specificity of SQS vs Kinesis, for example, comes out of the same philosophy: Provide the infrastructure, and let customers figure out what to build on top of it.
Google, meanwhile, started with AppEngine - run your apps in the cloud without concern for the hardware. AWS's equivalent is Elastic Bean Stalk - more than one layer of abstraction higher than the default offerings.
Google may have started with AppEngine, but that's not how it is today.
Google now has a line-up of products directly competing with equivalent AWS services: VMs (Compute Engine), queueing (Pub/sub), key/value storage (GCS, which even has S3 API compatibility), SQL databases (CloudSQL, Spanner), Redis, document storage (Google Datastore), distributed file system (Filestore, like EFS), big data store (BigQuery), etc.
AWS is "infrastructure as a service". Hosts, network switches, load balancers - things that historically cost an arm and a leg, but they could virtualize. Add some elasticity and auto scaling, and you've got the foundation to build anything else on top.
The hyper-specificity of SQS vs Kinesis, for example, comes out of the same philosophy: Provide the infrastructure, and let customers figure out what to build on top of it.
Google, meanwhile, started with AppEngine - run your apps in the cloud without concern for the hardware. AWS's equivalent is Elastic Bean Stalk - more than one layer of abstraction higher than the default offerings.