There appear to be a few other important factors missing from the article. 1) It isn't just that AWS (and others) provide loads of services, it's that I can ru

There appear to be a few other important factors missing from the article. 1) It isn't just that AWS (and others) provide loads of services, it's that I can run everything I need in the same data centre. SQL Azure might be a good pricing model for your system but if it makes sense for everything else to be in AWS (features, cost whatever) then I am more likely to spend more on AWS RDS or whatever. Might cost £1000s more but I cannot simply split my load across two providers, that is two points of failure. 2) The level of support you get from OVH is nowhere near as good as AWS, which is to be expected when comparing a "budget" provider with the "gold standard". OVH can rent stuff to you cheaper because their support team is presumably much smaller. 3) Even the UI for OVH gives me the heebie jeebies. I use them for personal stuff because they are cheap but the UI is far too slow to use for fast work. I see notifications that I have previously cleared and I get random emails occasionally about things I don't quite understand. I can live with that for cheaper personal sites but if I was using that every day, I would quit! Of course, for many people, there are issues with marketing (I haven't of some of the other providers) and the basic, and probably fair, assumption that with AWS you know the sort of quality you expect - a bit like buying Toyota. The time and risk involved in evaluating other providers is not worth it in many cases, especially when you only learn 6 months later that OVH don't have a configurable load-balancer or they don't have proper zone redundancy or you cannot upgrade certain hardware without literally copying your files into storage and trying to copy them back to a larger machine.