So, are people who rent vs. own their homes non-free because they are opting into the home-as-a-service trap? Of course, they are at risk. The landlord could

So, are people who rent vs. own their homes non-free because they are opting into the home-as-a-service trap? Of course, they are at risk. The landlord could kick you out, forget to pay the water bill, etc. But, you accept those risks because you perhaps want the flexibility of renting, the extra time saved by not having a lawn to mow, or the financial benefits of living without a mortgage. Why stop at owning a server? If you rent rackspace in a datacenter, they own you too. What if they lock the door and won't let you in? They could even steal your server along with all your data. What are you going to do then? Perhaps you should build your own. Then, you're still in trouble. What if the monopolies that control the pipe into your datacenter decide that you don't deserve connectivity anymore? Then, you're really screwed. You should just go live in a cave or something. Life is just too risky. Seriously, business/life/whatever has inherent risk. Often when faced with a binary choice, both options have non-trivial risks associated. You either accept the risks or mitigate them. Most importantly, you measure them. Is Amazon willing to risk what must be its fastest growing business segment by holding someone's data hostage? Doubtful. Are you, as a small start-up, capable of messing up servers you physically manage. You bet! So, pick your poison.