

Her real comment was that there are only 3 major cloud providers they can consider: AWS, GCP, and Azure. They chose AWS and AWS only. So there are a few options for them going forward — 1) keep doing what they’re doing and hope a single cloud provider can improve reliability, 2) modify their architecture to a multi-cloud architecture given the odds of more than one major provider going down simultaneously is much rarer, or 3) build their own datacenters/use colos which have a learning curve yet are still viable alternatives. Those that are serious about software own their own hardware, after all.
Each choice has its strengths and drawbacks. The economics are tough with any choice. Comes down to priorities, ability to differentiate, and value in differentiation :)

Yep! It’s a modal difference. Analogous to dismissing SSDs as a replacement for HDDs. HDDs get incrementally better as they improve their density capabilities. SSDs, meanwhile, came along and provided a “1000x” gain in speed. Let me tell folks here: that was MAGICAL. The future had arrived, at tremendous initial cost mind you, but it’s now the mainstream standard.
(Funny thing about HDDs — they’re serving a new niche in modern times. Ultra high densities have unlocked tremendously cheap bulk storage. Need to store an exabyte somewhere? Or need to read some data but don’t mind waiting a couple minutes/hours? SMR drives got ya covered. That’s the backbone of the cloud in 2025 with data storage exploding year over year.)