Given how much of the industry struggles when an AWS region goes down, this seems... unlikely.
(... yes, more cost-prohibitive than losing one or two days of business to a SNAFU).
The reality is that all serious outfits either host on AWS, or keep some level of AWS account at the ready, in addition to bare metal Linux servers in colos or hosting providers that they can move onto if needed.
Your statement is confusing simplicity and flexibility with multi-cloud. No one wants to deal with the confusing mix of random hosted services that 3 different cloud providers try to sell you, with one of them (Google Cloud) being this opaque horror story that the article is talking about.
Host on AWS, and mostly host your services on EC2. It's dead simple to migrate elsewhere if needed. You will likely never need to.
Don't host production stuff in there. And if you must, have a backup somewhere.
Mutlicloud is great but somewhat complicated to setup correctly.
The value add of AWS is that Amazon has unusually good customer service.
Amazon may not be particularly customer centric in terms of the products they allow on their market place, or AWS by the plate of spaghetti that is their various cloud offering, but their customer service division is great. You can get in contact with them in hours, and there's never a hesitation to give you refunds or credit if something goes wrong; something I can't say the same of when it comes to Microsoft or Google.
1. Excellent customer service, that tries to make the customer as happy as possible, within reason.
Amazon seems to be the big example of this one.
2. Terrible customer service, that has a hostile attitude towards the customer.
I'm not sure who's a good example here. Comcast?
3. Non-existent customer service.
This approach has been made famous by Google.
I know when I call my insurance or bank that I'll mostly get things sorted, however I need to jump through 101 hoops to get to the right person via a automated service. Stop being cheap and just hire some operators to wire you through to the right people. It's not terrible per-se, just some combination of good (helpful customer service reps) and bad (automated operator).
In that case, the vast majority of enterprises are negligent.
> In that case, the vast majority of enterprises are negligent.
Vast majority of enterprises are not mission critical and their products don't need guaranteed downtime lower than 1min per year. What they need is a lower price, because people don't care about quality in that case but about costs.
I’ve hosted on AWS for ages. They don’t do this. We didn’t pay the bill for two months once because the owner of the card left. No problems. This was a small spender outfit. They could have thrown us on the street as we were a rounding error. Now we’re a big spender and we still forgot to pay them sometimes (sorry Bezos)
But some of your point is worth considering. Design for portability should the worst happen (you are cut off due to geopolitics or other problems) or somewhere else turns out to be a better deal. Stick to IaaS and portable services only.
For the moment I trust AWS though.
You can creatively frame a problem any way you choose.
All countries have a problem with media, elites and politicians. We should aim to solve those problems, not cut a large chunk of the planet off. They are people too.
The industry has moved beyond depending on a single cloud computing vendor. It’s negligent to put all your eggs in one basket.
I would say don’t put your business in the hands of a single cloud vendor. Either exit the cloud or go multi cloud or run plain old Linux machines on hetzner or ionos. Design your systems to withstand your credit card expiring, or missing an email.