In my experience, most startups just want managed options they can run themselves rather than engaging partners but if that's what you need then AWS will have more companies to offer, although GCP does have qualified partners. I recommend contacting one of the GCP developer advocates either in this thread or on twitter for help, or email me separately and I'll put you in touch.
Also I havent worked with them but https://shinesolutions.com/ has put out plenty of articles and case studies that seems to show they're pretty capable, that might work for you.
For an early stage startup/Indie developer, GCP support model is not appeasing. $100 Per user for development role is unacceptable. (at least to us, the stage where we are now)
If you're very early then you can also try the older support pricing: https://cloud.google.com/support/premium/
If that's still too expensive then you can probably rely on the free support and forums until you have more spend and revenue.
https://cloud.google.com/solutions/migration-center/ is a reasonable jumping off point. Sorry if that didn't come up more clearly.
Gcp was always exactly the same perf, on the button exactly.
Azure was all over the place, fast then slow then fast then slow.
Aws was in the middle.
If you want guaranteed perf then go with gcp 100%
That is spot on. After a year of research and testing on GCP and AWS, I concluded with the same thing. AWS is much more startup/indie-friendly.
We hate Oracle like the next person, but we're locked in. And there's no way we're going to the "Oracle Cloud"
I can understand why this is a no-go for the GP.
This is the cost of lock-in.
Personally I'd rather have the expertise on staff than pay oracle (and microsoft) for this shitty behaviour.
Edit: I'm being downvoted but it's true, if you need enterprise support you're paying the same percentages you would on any other cloud service.
The role-based support is flat-rate but you're right that the Enterprise tier is $15k or percentage spend. From my experience, most companies are fine with the 1-hour production tier.
I haven't worked with GCP beyond 6 figure scale but I dont think that matters. If you need the 15-min response times and the TAM guidance then that's the fee but at least you can opt-out if you don't.
VMs don't have a mess of instance types, just standard but customizable cpu/ram with any disks and local SSDs attached. Live-migrated, billed to the second, and automatically grouped per cpu/ram increments for billing discounts.
Networking is 2gbps/core upto 16gpbs/instance with low latency and high throughput regardless of zone and doesn't need placement groups. VPCs are globally connected and can be peered and shared easily across projects so that it's maintained in one place across multiple teams. Fast global load balancing with a single IP across many protocols and immediate scaling.
Storage is fast with uncapped bandwidth and has strongly consistent listings. BigQuery, BigTable and lots of other services have "no-ops" so there's no overhead other than getting your work done. Support is also flat rate and not a ripoff percentage.
The major downsides to GCP are the lack of managed services, limited and outdated versions for what they do offer, poor documentation and broken SDKs, and dealing with the opinionated approach of their core in-house products. This usually means as a startup that you are more productive on AWS or Azure because you can get going in a few clicks with a vast ecosystem, while GCP is a better home for larger companies that have everything built and just need strong core offerings with operational simplicity.