You completely tunneled on the wrong portions of what I was saying. For one thing, Amazon&#x27;s &quot;real&quot; liability extends far beyond their SLA. Yes, their immediate financial compensation is small. But there are two things wrong with your conclusion here. First, that is not indicative of how much they &quot;trust&quot; the service. They are always going to take the most conservative amount they can get away with, and they are &quot;getting away&quot; with it just fine so why up it? Second, if a company on AWS was severely impacted by a genuine Amazon screw-up, the compensation  SLA is the least of Amazon&#x27;s concerns.  It would be like if UPS lost 20% of Amazon deliveries for one day. They wouldn&#x27;t be nearly as concerned with the explicit liability of compensating Amazon for those deliveries, however much they guarantee for them contractually, they would be far more concerned with everyone immediately switch to another shipping company because they could no longer trust UPS. That is the motivation.<p>Second, you&#x27;ve completely ignored the actual key points. For one thing, &quot;Cloud&quot; companies make their business by providing a stable service. You have the &quot;guarantee&quot; based on thousands of other business using the exact same infrastructure without serious service failures. That is a huge amount of statistical reliability. Compared to hiring your own IT department and cobbling together your own system, that is actually really good indicator. Second, the cost difference is potentially massive. Again, it is for similar reasons that shipping via UPS is a much better deal than shipping via your own private distribution network. You might have to still pay some people to handle your own inventory from its source (like you&#x27;d have to have some people to work on your system in the cloud) but you&#x27;d be taking advantage of a much larger, more efficient system instead of having to build and maintain your own.