> Is there anything stopping an organisation from defining some standard types of serverless environments? Yes. Basic economics. There is nothing _technical_ s

> Is there anything stopping an organisation from defining some standard types of serverless environments? Yes. Basic economics. There is nothing _technical_ stopping 'an organisation' from making a federated twitter or facebook. But there are (evidently) insurmountable non-technical reasons: It hasn't happened / there have been attempts which have all effectively failed (in the sense that they have made no significant dent in these services' user numbers). Why would e.g. Amazon (AWS) attempt to form a consortium or otherwise work together or follow a standard, relegating their offerings to the ultimate in elasticity? Economically speaking, selling grain is a bad business: If someone else sells it for 1ct less per kilo then the vast majority of your customers will go buy from someone else, there's no product differentiation. Serverless lockin (such as GAE or AWS Lambda) is the opposite. No matter how expensive you make the service, your users will stay for quite a while. But make a universal standard and you fly in one fell swoop to the other end of the spectrum. If I have a serverless deployment and the warts of serverless are fixed (which would, presumably, involve the ability to go to my source repo, run a single command, give it some credentials, and my service is now live after some compilation and uploading occurs) - then if someone else offers it 1ct cheaper tomorrow I'll probably just switch for the month. Why not? This cycle can be broken; but you're going to have to paint me a picture on how this happens. Government intervention? A social movement amongst CEOs (After the war, there was a lot of this going around)? A social movement amongst users so aggressive they demand it? Possible, but that would require that we all NOT go to serverless until the services offering it come up with a workable standard and make commitments to it.