> These professional data center providers serve 911 and financial clients, while gcp/aws serve selfies and cat pictures. The later considers their consumers cattle for the slaughter, while these professional colo providers don’t have that conflict of interest.

It's kinda silly to suggest nothing important runs on aws/gcp, there's plenty of huge businesses running on them, with equally large legal departments ready to string amazon/google up by the balls if they breach the terms of their contracts around SLAs etc.

AWS/GCP are pretty much as good as anyone reliablity-wise, as long as your product is multi-AZ etc.

But SLAs are a joke - your business should be making $100 for every $1 you spend on compute, the fact they'll refund your $1 is trivial compared to your $100 loss.

I mean, they're an infrastructure company, not an insurance company. If your power goes out, you don't get compensated for the $1M deal you would have closed if only your lights were on. If it's that important, you have a backup.

I think the reality is that if stores are closed or websites are down, people will just come back later. Maybe not so much for ad serving (if you're bored at work and Reddit is down, you're not going to make time after work to go view ads there), but for actual businesses, it might not be as big a problem as people would like to imagine. But if it is, that's why you can spend millions on a multi-cloud solution.

>while gcp/aws serve selfies and cat picture

That's an absurd stance and you should know better. It's common knowledge that hugely important companies run on GCP and AWS.

> These professional data center providers serve 911 and financial clients, while gcp/aws serve selfies and cat pictures.

You’re ignorant - countless major serious businesses, government organisations, and NGOs are running on AWS.

laughs in NASA.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/tag/nasa/

First hand experience here.

A professional datacenter provider, Equinix, provided one year notice for a datacenter closing (PA1). AWS would never do anything like that to their customers.

If I have equipment in a datacentre like Equinix, I likely also have circuits (with minimum terms), network equipment and servers (physical devices) that I need to manage and consider how to physically relocate.

When I have a service with AWS, I have software I need to relocate.

The needs and constraints of relocating software from 1000 servers is very very different to the needs and constraints of relocating 25 racks of equipment.

Unless you have 1000 AWS ‘pets’ instead of ‘cattle’, in which case you’ll wish you could just lift-and-shift.

AWS would probably just silently migrate you to wherever the new datacenter is located.

Equinix has physical equipment belonging to their customers. AWS doesn't. It's not even remotely similar.