On the authority of a couple of very knowledgeable peers, there seems to be a discrepancy between the coverage (sanctions) that cloud providers (in particular the Big 4 of that) contractually will provide for, e.g., outages (recall the AWS East-1 one), versus what businesses (most, qua scale and lawyer fee availability) require given their revenue / reputation dependence and risk management.
In normal language, this translates to: If thing go pear-shaped, you only get something like 12 months’ subscription refunded even when your business tanks due to zero revenue when your services are unavailable. Zero chance to be able to negotiate this away in your contract. Hobson’s choices everywhere.
Isn’t this a great Insurance opportunity, then ..? Odds very low, deep pockets for redress xor easily re-insured, no real single-vendor dependency when taken global, etc. It’s just that there’s a power gap leading to deviation away from the middle when it comes to bearing damages, that can be fixed in this way; ‘out of band’.
Or am I missing something …?
Plus:
[Or just pray, that’s also a (real?) red carpet option; Sicily]