Actually, the article specifically talked about some non-portable services and explained why this wasn't a big deal, so to me leaving out Firebase implies that 1) it is a big deal and 2) they're not interested in making Firebase apps portable. My conclusion is that they're only opening up the services where they're not in the lead and getting people locked into the ones that are. Which is fine and a great business strategy but rather detracts from the "we're all about openness and choice" image they're trying to project.

I personally perceive Google as ahead in the container space and quickly the machine learning space.

I don't see how one product being closed has any impact on the openness or portability of the products mentioned in this article. It seems unreasonable, to me, to criticize them for omitting an exhaustive list of closed products in a blog post about portable platforms.