[efitz]

> Literally everything you said is the opposite of how I've seen people use "cloud" in the real world.

I’ve been working in SaaS since 2008 and in cloud providers since 2012. And the use case I see over and over is people who don’t think they need or want geographical redundancy, until they do, and then they want it yesterday. Typically they are running fine for months or years and then there is an outage - maybe an AZ or a network partition - and then all of a sudden they’re scrambling for failover. Cloud often (usually?) has higher availability than the infra they migrated off of, and they grow addicted to it while not wanting to pay the dev cost for true high availability.

[re-thc]

> Cloud often (usually?) has higher availability than the infra they migrated off of

I've seen more region wide outages than just an AZ e.g. where AWS us-west-2 goes out and so it doesn't make a difference.

> and then they want it yesterday

Some great SaaS you've experienced. I've been at 1s that say they want it yesterday but then realize it's too much work (already in the cloud) and just let it go until the next outage and complain again but yet again nothing gets done.