Your point seems to come down to this argument, which I don't believe is in good faith (I don't believe the vendors are acting terribly laudably, either, but th

Your point seems to come down to this argument, which I don't believe is in good faith (I don't believe the vendors are acting terribly laudably, either, but that's a separate issue). > Sure, in a strictly literal, legal sense, it is quite possible that they are not selling a defective product because they lied to the customer and tricked them into purchasing a substandard product. So you said a guarantee was broken earlier, and I asked you to demonstrate that or point to where they've committed to guaranteeing a certain quality of service. Now you have adopted a position of saying they're technically not doing anything wrong, but morally they are, which when talking about Microsoft or Amazon or Google or Apple or (etc) is a bit of a slippery slope and/or isn't really news. I see you also slipped in a 'they lied to their customers' (and 'tricked them') but if you read any EULA you'll see it's all best-effort, sold as is, no warranty for any purpose, etc etc, and this has always been the case. Should it be the case? I don't have a good answer there. If you want penalty clauses, I'm sure you can find vendors that will oblige, but a) you'll quickly have an adversarial relationship with your supplier, after b) you spend stupid numbers of monies negotiating such a contract, and c) you'll still suffer exploits and outages.