Although to be fair, most hobbyists only need basic services like cloud servers/VMs, and hyperscalers like AWS are an awful deal compared to other options if you only need compute + storage + bandwidth. You don't need to use S3, Lambdas and Cloudfront to host a personal blog, a simple VPS will be more than enough.

It feels like most devs nowadays prefer using services that abstract away the infrastructure, at the cost of not developing SysOps skills, so I don't see a future where the Cloud is going to lose relevance.

But I think the argument is - do they need to be? How much of the services of AWS (Google/azure/etc) are really needed by the majority of customers?

For companies that need hyperscaling services, I get it. There are definite benefits to the cloud when operating at extremes (auto scaling up and down). But for the majority of workloads, I think you could be well served by a more barebones offering.

Some companies want the space to grow into it. At my job, we just started getting into video decoding. AWS has elastic video processing services. Where as DO would cost way more to setup those services on our own.

Very many. And none of them are EC2 (or its equivalent). Any service that comes with the consumption based charging (i.e. no 24x7 running costs whether it is used or not) and offers a clearly defined functional feature, has plenty of appeal to cloud customers. Another part of the appeal is the mix and match nature of mature cloud platforms: the customers get substantial freedom to choose from services they can instantly start using, or roll (and maintain) their own albeir at a higher cost.

I.e. if the customer wants a queue, they get a queue, and nothing else. The cloud platform abstracts away and takes care of the underlying platform that «runs» the queue and eliminates the operational overhead that comes with having to look after the message broker that provides the said queue. There are other many examples.

While there are valid use-case where you get value from the extra services the hyperscaller are providing, most of the time people go for AWS “because everybody does it” or because the choice was made by a consulting company that doesn't pay the final cloud bill and is optimizing their own added value at the expenses of the customer's one.

I've been doing freelance work for 7 years now for roughly two dozens if companies of various size, and I can't tell you how many massively underused AWS / Azure VPS I've seen, but it's more than half the cloud bills of the said companies (or division for big companies since I obviously only had the vision on the division I worked for and not the whole company).

I think it was mentioned in the article what AWS offers. Lock-in.

So do DO, OVH, Hetzner, Azure, GCP, Oracle, IBM etc. Every cloud platform comes with a hard lock-in.

Isn’t most of that just S3 storage/bandwidth?

I had no issues with Hetzner's component and especially network quality for a decade now. Before that, yeah, there could be some hiccups and issues. But they stopped being issues a long time ago. And really, what hardware issues do you expect on this hardware:

https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/brands/matrix-d...

They didn't save a whole lot of money from it (they aren't spending a whole lot on it anyway), and now their business ever so slightly loses focus. Not to mention, as you said, the quality aspects. Cloud gives you many things "for free" (like local disk RAID, network and power redundancy, datacenter compliance, in-transit and on-disk encryption, optimized OS images, overall network security, controls around what their employees can do - that $5/month lowendbox provider from Romania is almost certainly logging into your VM and going through your files) which you lose when going to a "pre-cloud" provider.

if this approach to DC compliance/security/redundancy is good enough for the world's financial services industry then it's probably good enough for everyone else too

(but yes, then only saves about 90% of the cost instead of 95%)

So far with Ubicloud, you get virtual machines, load balancers, private networking, managed PostgreSQL, all with encryption at rest and in-transit. The Ubicloud managed service uses Hetzner bare metal as one of its hosting providers, which cuts costs 2x - 10x compared to AWS/Azure. Would love to hear any feedback if you'd like to give it a try, or go through the repo here: https://github.com/ubicloud/ubicloud

Are all the bits and pieces necessary for starting one's own managed service open source? In case somebody is interested in starting their own commercial cloud. How easy would that be to deploy?

I'm just a home labber and I've run OpenStack via kolla-ansible for like 7 years now, and Ceph since the jewel release I think almost 8 years ago for storage. Both are pretty easy to manage.