How about “the industry should have moved beyond depending on a single cloud computing vendor.”?

It's pretty cost-prohibitive.

(... yes, more cost-prohibitive than losing one or two days of business to a SNAFU).

That is a big difference from what you said.

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.

Our company tried that and was huge waste of time. Resulted in us wasting a lot of time trying to make our stuff "generic" so we could switch off of AWS if we ever wanted to. Eventually 1+ years later someone finally realized how much time we were wasting designing for some hypothetical event that they finally told us to stop doing that and fully utilize AWS directly.

AWS might be up for others but could have locked you out

us-east-1, it's always us-east-1

Don't host production stuff in there. And if you must, have a backup somewhere.