While they have competent infrastructure, an IaaS offering needs a platform whose capabilities are more complex than one where you're running only first-party a

While they have competent infrastructure, an IaaS offering needs a platform whose capabilities are more complex than one where you're running only first-party applications. And even if they spent the time and effort, they'd be entering a commoditified, crowded field. All the big players can run servers, the value-add is from SaaS and/or surrounding PaaS, the latter of which they'd have to build from scratch. Their previous forays into PaaS, done at a time when Twitter was also in this space, have faltered. And Facebook's pre-existing services are too far up the stack to be relevant to any IaaS ambition. I doubt the 'trust issues' contribute significantly in Facebook's decision to not offer this, but I agree they'd be a factor for potential customers once the offering came to be. Facebook's branding is odd in that they've doubled down on the Facebook brand despite acquiring services that flourished in part for being "not Facebook". They seem resistant to rebrand into a holding company, and their choice supports the view that the company's tech mission is to remain tightly coupled with their flagship social network.