Choice of language in representing this is rather telling, because AWS can (and does) pitch this as a strength, viz. that regionalisation helps customers (especially, significantly, bigco enterprise customers) reason about the possible failure modes, and thereby contain the blast radius of component failure.

They'd never comment on competitors in public, but the clear implication is that apparently global services merely gloss over the risks, they don't resolve them, and eventually it'll blow up in your face, or someone's face at least.

> there is no way around global dependencies

This sounds more like a challenge than an assertion. In my very long experience of tech, anyone who ever said, "you can't do that", eventually ate their hat.

Which of Google's nosql db provides strong consistency - bigtable? Just confirming

GCP datastore and firestore are strongly consistent nosql databases that are available in multi-region configurations [2].

[1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/replication.... [2] https://cloud.google.com/datastore/docs/locations

In any case, Cloud Spanner provides strong consistency in multi-region deployments.

If anything. AWS is playing catch up.

A bank, for instance, may be required to prove it cannot replicate customer data across regions, and that no third party provider will replicate its data using their own BCM or DR systems.

Regardless of CSP, startups should think about rules on movement of data among data jurisdictions (such as GDPR) and architect accordingly.