Most of these are what I'd call "cloud in name only" providers - everyone uses the term but you would have significant challenge moving a cloud workload that makes use of the higher layer abstractions to these.
There are very few workloads that require more than what you can accomplish with a handful of VMs. Using tools like Terraform makes it a lot easier to abstract away the specialised services.
I work with a couple workloads that can’t even be completely deployed in cloud environments. Those aren’t common.
The vast majority of companies can get along with a Google office license and a Wix website.
Not everyone works at a company with hundreds of thousands of employees and hundreds of millions of users.
I agree RDS, Aurora, Big Query, S3, load balancers, declarative security policies, artifact repositories, managed auto-scaling clusters and so on are very convenient, but they aren’t a requirement.
You “worked with a couple of workloads” and that’s what makes you an expert on infrastructure and architecture at scale?
Your LinkedIn profile is your HN profile. I see you have worked at some large well known companies. How can you possibly not have been exposed to some large deployments?
And none of those is “the simple case” I alluded to. The vast majority of businesses need, perhaps, email, file sharing, instant messaging and, perhaps, a website. They won’t train their own ML models, nor have parallel sysplexes of mainframes spread across multiple datacenters.
So, in the grand scheme of things, how much revenue do you think all of those small businesses combined make compared to just the combined business revenue and compute needs of just the large companies you have worked for?
It surprises me that you have blinders on to an industry where you personally have worked for companies with large enough implementations that AWS has felt the need to brag about