This article is based on reporting originally published by Livemint / IANS in July 2019. Analyst quotes are attributed to Forrester and Gartner researchers as reported at that time. Financial figures reflect Q1 2019 earnings. The Indian cloud market has evolved significantly since then.
India: A High-Growth Cloud Market With a Clear Pecking Order
As of 2019, India had established itself as one of the most promising cloud markets in the world. According to Gartner data cited at the time, India’s public cloud services revenue was projected to reach $2.4 billion in 2019, representing a 24.3% increase over 2018. India was ranked among nine countries expected to outpace the global average cloud adoption growth rate of 16%.
Within that market, Cloud Application Services (SaaS) was the fastest-growing segment, with revenue estimated to grow 23% in 2019 to reach $1.15 billion. Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) spending was projected to grow 22% over the same period. Indian enterprises, SMBs, and startups were aggressively embracing intelligent, scalable cloud platforms as part of broader digital transformation journeys — and global providers were competing hard for their business.
AWS and Azure Dominate; GCP Lags Behind
Despite a crowded and growing market, two players dominated: Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft Azure. Google Cloud Platform (GCP), despite being a credible global provider, struggled to convert that global credibility into meaningful enterprise market share in India.
The reasons are structural and rooted in how each vendor entered the enterprise space:
- AWS enjoyed a first-mover advantage, having established itself as the default IaaS provider long before most Indian enterprises were cloud-ready. Its breadth of services — compute, storage, databases, ML, security — made it a comprehensive one-stop shop.
- Microsoft Azure benefited from decades of enterprise incumbency. Organisations running Windows Server, SQL Server, Active Directory, and Office 365 found a natural migration path to Azure. Microsoft’s existing enterprise sales relationships and licensing agreements gave it direct channels into IT decision-makers.
- Google Cloud Platform lacked both advantages. It was perceived as a provider of niche, developer-oriented services rather than a full-stack enterprise IT vendor — a brand positioning problem that went beyond product capability.
“This is one of the key reasons why they hired Thomas Kurian (an Oracle veteran) to run their enterprise business. Google also suffers from a brand disadvantage when it comes to being an enterprise IT vendor. They are considered a provider of very niche services, unlike AWS and Microsoft.”
— Ashutosh Sharma, VP and Research Director, Forrester (via IANS, 2019)
The Revenue Picture at the Time
Q1 2019 earnings reports illustrated how wide the gap had grown:
- AWS reported $7.7 billion in Q1 2019 revenue, with 41% year-over-year growth.
- Microsoft reported that its Commercial Cloud business grew to $9.6 billion in Q1 2019, with Azure alone growing 73%.
- Google Cloud did not report standalone cloud revenue at the time. GCP revenue was bundled into an “Other” revenue category alongside G Suite, Google Play, and hardware (including Nest), which collectively reported $5.45 billion for the quarter — making direct comparison impossible.
The lack of transparent reporting was itself a signal: Google Cloud was not yet mature enough as a business unit to be broken out separately, which made it harder for enterprise buyers to benchmark GCP’s scale and stability against AWS and Azure.
Google’s Strategy to Close the Gap
Recognising the problem, Google took several steps in 2018–2019 to strengthen its enterprise position — both globally and specifically in India.
Leadership: Hiring Thomas Kurian
Google’s most significant organisational move was hiring Thomas Kurian, a former Oracle President with deep enterprise software and sales experience, to lead Google Cloud. The hire signalled a deliberate shift in GCP’s go-to-market approach — away from a developer-centric, bottom-up model toward a top-down enterprise sales motion more comparable to how AWS and Microsoft operate.
Acquisitions to Broaden the Portfolio
Under Kurian, Google Cloud moved to close product gaps through acquisitions:
- Elastifile — A provider of scalable enterprise file storage for the cloud, acquired for an undisclosed sum. This addressed a gap in GCP’s enterprise storage portfolio, particularly for workloads requiring shared file systems.
- Looker — A business intelligence and data analytics platform, announced for acquisition at $2.6 billion. This was one of Google Cloud’s largest acquisitions at the time and aimed to strengthen GCP’s data and analytics story — an area where Google had technical depth but limited enterprise tooling.
“Google needs to build a wider portfolio of services quickly and catch up with its peers who currently have more services and partners on-board their platforms. Hence such acquisitions become a key part of their plans to get there.”
— Ashutosh Sharma, VP and Research Director, Forrester (via IANS, 2019)
“The acquisition of Elastifile by Google is targeted towards file storage specialisation. The gain of market share will be determined by how well the integration between these two companies happens. Execution is often the most challenging part.”
— Naveen Mishra, Research Director, Gartner (via IANS, 2019)
Improving Enterprise Narrative and Partner Ecosystem
Beyond acquisitions, Gartner’s Naveen Mishra noted at the time that Google had been actively working to improve its enterprise narrative over the preceding 12–18 months, including investing in its partner ecosystem — a critical requirement for competing with AWS and Microsoft, both of which had extensive networks of system integrators, resellers, and ISVs helping drive adoption.
“In the last 12–18 months, Google has been improving their enterprise narrative and mindshare, which has led to better traction in India. Investment in partner ecosystem is another focus area for Google.”
— Naveen Mishra, Research Director, Gartner (via IANS, 2019)
Broader Market Dynamics: Security and Multi-Cloud
Indian enterprises’ shift from a “cloud first” to a “cloud only” mindset was also driving a parallel focus on security. As more workloads moved off-premises, organisations were increasing security budgets — a trend that benefited cloud providers who could offer integrated security tooling alongside infrastructure.
At the same time, enterprises increasingly favoured a multi-cloud strategy — distributing workloads across AWS, Azure, and GCP to avoid vendor lock-in and optimise cost and performance. This should theoretically have benefited GCP, giving it a seat at the table even in accounts led by AWS or Azure. However, without strong enterprise relationships and local partner networks, GCP was often the third choice — considered but not selected.
Key Takeaways for Cloud Practitioners
- First-mover advantage compounds over time. AWS’s early lead created entrenched workflows, trained workforces, and ISV ecosystems that are genuinely hard to displace — even with comparable technology.
- Enterprise sales motion matters as much as technology. Microsoft Azure’s growth in India was driven as much by existing licensing relationships as by technical merit. GCP’s hire of Thomas Kurian acknowledged this directly.
- Brand perception in enterprise markets is slow to change. Google’s reputation as a consumer and developer platform created friction with enterprise buyers evaluating long-term infrastructure commitments.
- Acquisitions must be executed, not just announced. Analysts were cautious — integration quality, not acquisition price, determines whether product gaps actually close.
- Partner ecosystems are infrastructure. A cloud platform without a strong SI and ISV partner network struggles to reach SMBs and regional enterprises that rely on intermediaries for cloud adoption guidance.
Note: This analysis reflects the state of the Indian cloud market and GCP’s competitive position as of mid-2019. Google Cloud has continued to invest heavily in India and globally since this period. Market share figures, revenue disclosures, and competitive dynamics have changed materially.