They all have SLAs, but the "tier" at which a problem happens dramatically affects how the SLA pays out, or if it pays out. For example, within the AWS Compute

They all have SLAs, but the "tier" at which a problem happens dramatically affects how the SLA pays out, or if it pays out. For example, within the AWS Compute SLA you linked: > Unavailable is defined as: For Amazon EC2 (other than Single EC2 Instances), Amazon ECS, or Amazon Fargate, when all of your running instances or running tasks, as applicable, deployed in two or more AZs in the same AWS region (or, if there is only one AZ in the AWS region, that AZ and an AZ in another AWS region) concurrently have no external connectivity. Get this: Single EC2 instances have an SLA of 90%. Seriously. Its in that article. In other words; AZ outages rarely see pay out, because you "didn't architect your cloud correctly". And we've been told some nicer variation of this when asking for a reimbursement a few years back. You do have to ask, you know. They could literally automate this process, but they don't. Whatever. Let's also be clear about the language here: There's no "pay out" at all. What happens is, you get the amazing privilege of not being forced to pay them for a product that didn't work. That ties directly back to the article; they pay out based on their architecture and SLAs, which are not your architecture and SLAs, unless you perfectly match your architecture to their architecture, which will have gaps, and then you're bought in so hard that you could never leave if you needed to.