That's not a rational business decision The fewer the points of failure, the better Your choice of 50 unrelated, unintegrated vendors introduces 50 single poi

That's not a rational business decision The fewer the points of failure, the better Your choice of 50 unrelated, unintegrated vendors introduces 50 single points of failure to business That's incredibly stupid - unless you truly have no choice It introduces a huge amount of unnecessary risk to the company, and immense overhead in additional personnel (product admins, contract management, vulnerability monitoring, end user time/training, etc) It's why multicloud is mostly not a thing: outside of a few niche cases, running cloud workloads across multiple providers is more expensive than running it all in one. Sure GCP might have something that's cheaper than AWS, and AWS than Azure, and Azure than GCP - but now you have to manage data going into and out of three providers instead of one, three separate contracts, three sets of credential groups, etc