I think you're right: the headline on the article is bad/awkward in terms of how most people use multi-cloud. I get the impression that Google uses this term in

I think you're right: the headline on the article is bad/awkward in terms of how most people use multi-cloud. I get the impression that Google uses this term internally very differently. I also think you're right that they are leaving out the not insignificant detail about egress pricing. In the context of this article, I think what they are pitching is the idea that, if you are already running services on AWS, you can still leverage some of the value-added service provided by GCP (e.g., their Vision API) by fronting them with Google Cloud Functions. So, for example, let's say you built, and are running, an ecommerce platform on AWS. Now you'd like to leverage some of Google's Vision services to make "visual recommendations of related products". You already let customers upload product images via S3. Now you can have a Lambda function forward that image to a GCP CloudFunction, have it get processed by your visual recommender system, and spit back out a list of SKUs that have a visually similar image. I think the goal is to convince companies that you don't have to put all your eggs in one basket in terms of capabilities, rather than convince them to have availability/capacity between multiple clouds (which how I think most people would interpret the headline).