> On other hand, they have more experience handling failure than 99% of companies so I think 99% companies are better off with Azure/AWS/AliBaba. Nowhere near

> On other hand, they have more experience handling failure than 99% of companies so I think 99% companies are better off with Azure/AWS/AliBaba. Nowhere near 99%. Running a large service on top of Azure or AWS is not a walk in the park. You don't manage hardware and you deal less with provisioning, but you need a significant level of expertise in dealing with idiosyncrasies of the particular hosting you've chosen. I've seen companies transition to AWS. Very often they spend months "figuring things out". And then it turns out that they've just traded low-level problems which everyone knows how to solve for high-level problems no one knows how to solve. Also, just because AWS/Azure is running doesn't mean your service is up. You end up managing high-level company-specific infrastructure on top of low-level one-size-fits-all infrastructure. Both can fail. A lot of companies jump onto AWS/Azure/other big clouds because of hype, bandwagon effect and the general feeling everything will become "world-class" by magic. In many cases there is no legitimate cost-benefits analysis that compares costs of AWS switch to costs of fixing whatever problems company's current infrastructure suffers from. Also, almost no one factors in the costs of vendor lock-in and "too big to care" effect. There are definitely use cases where Big Cloud makes sense, but it's nowhere near 99%.