They have the ability to kill comeptition by losing money until they go broke first.
Source?
> Smaller providers (and also local in the case of 84codes) are preferred
AWS have a reputation and stability to keep because half of the internet, governments, banks, etc. rely on them. If a small provider makes a mistake, or goes bankrupt due to unforseen circumstances, you're left holding the bag on your own.
Insert LLM-generated variation thereof.
The idea of AWS as some kind of bag-holding partner is risible. They're a machine that helps convert capex to opex. Any systems services they may offer along the way are purely secondary.
Rarely. And never if you've setup your environment across multiple regions.
But unless you need a complex control plane or highly dynamic scaling on a daily basis you also can do exact same thing with any non-cloud provider (and a CDN). Order some bare metal, roll out, enjoy - if it goes bad, order bare metal from someone else, redeploy to it, restore from backups, and recover in about the same time (half a day) it takes AWS to fix us-east-1 when it fails. It also probably will save a lot of money (NATgw bills alone) in the long term.
Would love it if someone had more of the detailed history.