[ex-aws-now-goog]

Having worked at AWS, I have to disagree with you.

No-one that I worked with saw containerization as a threat. And why would they? At the VM level you can already paper over differences between cloud providers and I don't think that anyone at any of the large cloud providers lies awake at night worried about this.

I also don't understand why serverless would couple you to a particular cloud provider. All the big cloud providers provide serverless features and it never takes long to see feature parity.

What ties you to a cloud provider (or any company) is when you use features unique to that provider. And presumably you're using those features because the value they add outweighs the perceived costs of lock-in or the cost of implementing it yourself.

[cbzbc]

The point is that each serverless implementation is different enough that even if you are using the same feature, the cruft around that is different enough to provide an certain amount of lock in.

[ex-aws-now-goog]

Sure and this is to be expected. It costs time and money to align yourself with someone else's implementation and unless your customers demand alignment (e.g. S3-compatible storage interfaces), you're probably not going bother.

Again, this comes down to cost-benefit calculations. If some companies find that proprietary feature X from cloud Y provides a bigger (perceived) return on investment than not using feature X, then they are likely to use it. If company X later shafts them, they have to swallow more costs to migrate away but hopefully (for them) they took this possibility into consideration when they made their original decision.

[Touche]

I mean, the arguments and return values are different. Seems like a couple hours of work to convert from one to another, at most.