Microsoft Azure vs Google Cloud
There is a fierce competition for leadership in the public sector of cloud computing. The two way race between Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud has been a constant continuation of mapping out who does it best. Both maintain a commanding position among the cloud based organisations.
Focusing on an overview of both tech giants, Microsoft is specifically capable in SaaS, whereas Google Cloud, with its growing innovation in the artificial intelligence sector, is positioned to create massive growth as the AI market continues to succeed. Azure offers an exceedingly strong cloud infrastructure. With growing enterprise organisations, this programme would fit your needs. Microsoft pride themselves in their enterprise background, knowing that it is a significant factor that sets them apart from the competition. Understanding the importance of interoperational services, Azure works hard to incorporate data centers and creates a ‘hybrid cloud’; another significant standing-point for Microsoft.
Although entering later in the game, Google Cloud is a versatile underdog in this metaphorically race. Harnessing their profound technical expertise into their industry-leading tools, Google Cloud focuses on deep learning and artificial intelligence, machine learning and data analytics. These each hold significant advantages over its competitors.
Microsoft Azure pros and cons
Delving deeper into the world of Azure, we note that they started by essentially transferring their on-premises software - Sharepoint, Windows Server, Dynamics Active Directory, etc. - making the decision to repurpose them, making each process cloud suitable. Due to a large majority of enterprises using Windows and other Microsoft services, and their ability to tightly integrate each with various applications, Azure makes the most sense to use for these organisations. This only increases the rate of loyal customers to Microsoft. Alongside any pro, there is a con, and in Microsoft’s case, Gartner reports on finding faults within their platform’s imperfections. "While Microsoft Azure is an enterprise-ready platform, Gartner clients report that the service experience feels less enterprise-ready than they expected, given Microsoft's long history as an enterprise vendor.".
Google Cloud pros and cons
Google Cloud holds a particularly strong offering that is a game changer in the race to be the top leading cloud server provider; offering Big Data, Analytics and Machine Learning.
Gartner said that its "clients typically choose GCP as a secondary provider rather than a strategic provider, though GCP is increasingly chosen as a strategic alternative to AWS by customers whose businesses compete with Amazon, and that are more open-source-centric or DevOps-centric, and thus are less well-aligned to Microsoft Azure."
Gartner: no threats to AWS, MS and Google cloud dominance
The report – Magic Quadrant for Cloud Infrastructure and Platform Services – says enterprises have “significantly accelerated” their use of cloud infrastructure and platform service (CIPS) as they seek scalability and agility during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Strong niche players
But while it recognises strong niche players and visionaries such as Alibaba Cloud, Oracle, Tencent Cloud and IBM in its magic quadrant, it finds little to threaten the dominance of AWS, Microsoft and Google in the lucrative cloud market.
Magic quadrant – AWS
The report cites clients complaining of heavy handed sales techniques from AWS, where customers are pressured to increase spend by 20 per cent in order to renew their contracts. Companies with “significant dependence” on the platform feel they have nowhere to turn, though the report also notes that “the pressure to increase spend is not AWS’s policy and will be eliminated if the customer escalates.”
It also cautions that customers of the market leader often find they need third-party help in order to overcome the “substantial technical skills” in order to navigate the complexity of the product portfolio, and says “AWS’s new services are often not ready for meaningful enterprise consumption” because the products are “matured in public.” Gartner also says companies are misled about the abilities of AWS’s products based on its leadership position in IaaS and dbPaaS, which does not necessarily translate across to other cloud strengths.
Magic quadrant – Google Cloud
Google Cloud, the report says, is making strong gains but struggles to maintain support post-sales, perhaps as a result of rapid internal growth. It also cautions that attractive discount incentives are bound to reverse later. Google Cloud operates at a substantial loss and is not the parent company’s main source of revenue. The report praises Google Cloud’s reputation as a strategic choice and its “impressive year-on-year improvements”.
Magic quadrant – Microsoft Azure
Microsoft Azure, the report says, has “the broadest sets of capabilities, covering a full range of enterprise IT needs from SaaS to PaaS and Iaas compared to any provider in this market.” It also has market trust built over decades. However Gartner cautions that Microsoft, while making concerted efforts to improve resiliency, has continued to “experience some outages, particularly in association with updates and maintenance events.” Further downsides included overcomplicated licensing and a sales strategy that prevented reps from “effectively deploying Azure to bring down a customer’s total Microsoft costs.”
Gartner: ‘remarkably similar’
The report concludes that: “On the surface, many of the providers in this magic quadrant appear alike. They all have, for example, virtual machines, managed container services and managed database PaaS offerings. The various pricing models are remarkably similar and often within comparable ranges, even when negotiated discounts are taken into account.
“What’s wholly different is below the surface – at the level of architecture, implementation and operations. The resiliency characteristics afforded to clients varies widely by provider. Major outages plagued several cloud providers in this Magic Quadrant over the past year. In some cases, providers offered few capabilities to work around provider-oriented failure using accepted, modern means such as availability zones.
“Strategic cloud provider selection necessitates that enterprises consider the failure scenarios by workload and architect to manage them. In some regions, with several providers in this Magic Quadrant, the challenge of working around provider-oriented failure is insurmountable.”