It's typically people whose incentives in no way align with lowering long term costs for their organization. When you are building something new, the incentives

It's typically people whose incentives in no way align with lowering long term costs for their organization. When you are building something new, the incentives are often on speed of delivery, plus whatever you can learn for yourself. Evaluating whether you'd be saving a lot of money 3 years from now is something that't rarely going to lead to raises or bonuses. You might not even be working at the same place by the time the problem is visible. And even if you do, it's often far better for yourself to build something that will catch fire and then put it out than to build something better in the first place. This happens in basically every organization out there, even in the best ones. I've saved millions a month in AWS costs that came from decisions of people that are major tech leaders today. The original architect is now a CEO in a company you know, and I looked great for my efforts: Everyone won, other than the largest shareholders, who weren't looking into the decisions at all, as they had bigger fish to fry. If incentives are such that the extra effort to be more cloud portable are useless to the person spending the effort, of course they are going to be "lazy". I've never worked at a place where I couldn't massively cut hardware or cloud costs by trying a little bit. It's just rarely been something that was anywhere near the top of the priority list.