I think the original point I made stands. Hosting on Amazon&#x27;s platform essentially means I risk my revenue on Amazon&#x27;s uptime. Actually using their infrastructure like S3 means I don&#x27;t just risk my revenue but actually get locked in. Amazon is not willing to do the same, according to their total crap SLA. That tells me a lot. And to top it all of, Amazon is famous for &quot;eating&quot; businesses of their customers : use their infrastructure to see how one of their customers do business, then take it over.<p>So if it&#x27;s all the same, I&#x27;d rather have a decent SLA. Furthermore this sounds a lot like Amazon&#x27;s not in fact giving me anything.<p>Your point is that they&#x27;ll do the right thing because otherwise their customers would leave. Customers you said in the previous paragraph they give &quot;the most conservative amount they can get away with, and they are &quot;getting away&quot; with it just fine so why up it?&quot;.<p>Sounds like they really care about customers doesn&#x27;t it ?<p>&gt; You have the &quot;guarantee&quot; based on thousands of other business using the exact same infrastructure without serious service failures.<p>I can get that guarantee at 1000 datacenters and colo providers, at least. Some of which have a decent SLA. But even among cloud IAAS, both Azure and Google provide both Amazon&#x27;s guarantee, and better SLAs.