Microsoft and Google
I have read the judge's decision and while I feel that some details are not spelled out in it I am guessing that the point is that there are substantial differences between the Microsoft and Google cases.
Apparently (it is quoted in the decision) when one signs up with Microsoft one states one's location and all the data are "segmented into regions", i.e., stored in the data centers in the same region as the customer. This was the central issue when the US demanded data that was never stored in the US by design.
It is not clear to me what the "responsive data" were in the Google case, but I am guessing that the customers were American (or at least located in the US) and the fact that the data were stored elsewhere was merely incidental and not a consequence of intentional segmentation.
It is also not entirely clear to me what information was in fact covered by the warrant. The order mentions "subscriber information" (this, apparently, includes various metadata, search history, location - I can see how this might be treated differently from, say, email contents). Arguably, Google possess this information in their main business location in CA, even if the record is in fact stored in another country (again, for purely technical reasons).
IANAL, and as I said, not all the details are clear. However, I certainly can see the judge may have a point.