Eh... I think that the maybes you are using are a little bit misleading. When a company sells space in their &quot;cloud&quot;, like maybe Microsoft or Amazon, there is a business guarantee that goes along with it. If Amazon were to randomly lose a big chuck of Netflix data, AWS&#x27;s business would tank immediately. AWS is a giant system that uses its scale and number of customers to efficiently provide a more stable system at a lower cost than all of those individual customers could achieve by building and maintaining their own IT.<p>I think it is sort of like a delivery system. If USPS or FedEx or USP started losing a massive number of packages (I know that they do lose some) then they would get abandoned, just like &quot;Cloud&quot; companies have an incentive to maintain a baseline level of quality. The alternative is that every business would have to create their own shipping services. I think it makes sense to assume that in most cases, unless the business is already massive enough to warrant it, that it is cheaper and more reliable to use the aggregate, dedicated ones for hire. The &quot;Cloud&quot; will be cheaper than individual implementations, and it won&#x27;t be nearly as suspect to individual implementation errors because the identical system will have been proven by many other customers (otherwise it would be abandoned).