Apologies, but this just reads like a low effort critique of big things.
To be clear, they should get criticism. They should be held liable for any damage they cause.
But that they remain the biggest cloud offering out there isn't something you'd expect to change from a few outages that, by most all evidence, potential replacements have, as well? More, a lot of the outages potential replacements have are often more global in nature.
I would say you are explaining why they get a free pass so they still get one - they are bad but their main competitors are even worse!
I thought one of the major selling points of the big cloud providers was that they were more reliable than running your own stuff (by which i mean anything from a VPS to multiple data centres depending on your scale. Compared to those alternatives they seem to be less reliable in practice!
The solution is to have a multi-region, or even multi-cloud setup, but then bang goes the "they do all the work for you" argument (which i doubt anyway).
That isn't a free pass. You have no data showing how many people did go to competitors over this. You are asserting it is zero, but why do you think that? Going on the talks here, you can find plenty of folks that opted not to go with or stay on them.
You are further asserting that these outages prove they are not still more reliable than home spun. Is that the case? More than a few people aren't ready for a single hard drive to crash on the stuff they are doing.
