> What’s weird is companies trying to sell some completely new way of achieving similar results and being surprised when the universe doesn’t reengineer everyth

> What’s weird is companies trying to sell some completely new way of achieving similar results and being surprised when the universe doesn’t reengineer everything as homage to their brilliance Some abstractions can be proven to be objectively-better solutions, along some axes you care about, for your use-case, such that the existing abstraction you were relying upon is then provably sub-optimal. Switching to the more-optimal abstraction is not then an "homage to the brilliance" of the company that created the abstraction; it's a simple "pay CapEx to lower OpEx in a way that will pay itself back after N years" decision. If you can budget it, you do it. I'm not saying that every abstraction that the IaaS vendors invent is this kind of better mouse-trap, mind you. You can usually distinguish the ones that are, because they get independently reimplemented and used by people who aren't just aiming to build "cloud-native" software, but instead just really want/need the semantics of that particular abstraction, independent of where it runs. Object storage is a great example of an abstraction where that is the case. There are many things that do object storage now — both cloud services, and regular deployable software. In fact, even the more-traditional backup vendors, like Backblaze, now also offer object-storage APIs.