Really? Have you actually used it or done any research?
1. Container Engine = built on kubernetes, faster and easier than the others
2. Compute Engine = VMs start faster, customizable rather than set sizes, live migration when the host has maintenance or starts to fail, NVME SSDs available with < 1ms latency
3. Networking = faster and more consistent performance, all the regions are connected which makes cross-regional/global deployments easier and more secure
4. Load balancing = actually routes the traffic automatically to the closest region and spills over based on capacity, not just DNS junk like the rest, no warmup or latency issues
5. CDN interconnects = cheaper bandwidth and lower latency using their partner CDN networks
6. Pub/Sub = great message system that doesnt need shards or anything to deal with for scaling, supports multiple subscribers and acks
7. gcloud = best shell access available to interact with pretty much everything, no keys or passwords to worry about
8. grpc APIs, fast storage/nearline, bigtable/datastore/cloud sql, Vision API, etc
Yes it's still new and there are a few frustrating issues, and AWS and Azure do have lots of products and their own special offerings, but the core Google platform is the amazing at running a bunch of servers/containers for a globally distributed app with high performance. We've tried them all and GCP has been the best so far.
They all have their own proprietary services which are valuable but it's completely your choice to use them.
I see this being thrown around here a lot. Buying into Google's PR is what this is. If you've valid points apart from BigQuery vs RedShift, I'd request you to enumerate them for me.
I have personally interacted with Googlers who lament the fact that 'no one internally bothers using most of GCP' and hence not being able to 'iterate/innovate as fast as AWS' is a key disadvantage despite their 'superior offerings', whatever that means.