There is a lot there, and some of it is apples to apples and some is definitely apples to oranges. I'm just saying overall you have the same number of headaches, they are just different headaches. Just last week there was significant degradation that took quite some time to be admitted (admitted might be the wrong word but everyone seemed to know there was an issue with AWS before AWS said their was an issue)

  > I don't have to create purchase orders and wait for hardware.   
  

Why would this need to be done if initial implementation was planned and done correctly? Baring catastrophic hardware failures you shouldn't need to do this? Im nitpicking your comment and I think is tangential to my original point (And dont want to get into a planning/design/implementation discussion either).

> You don't have to spend time and resources with discussions on how the 'network topology' is going to look like, and then send people off to implement and wire up stuff.

This isn't that hard if you still have the expertise in house. Yes it is work and knowhow, but so is AWS networking/wiring, service interop.

> AWS cares

I think this is arguable and YMMV. Sure it depends on who you are and who you talk to.

Im not saying AWS isn't viable tech, and there are 30 ways to skin a cat at the end of the day if you end up with a skinned cat you like you're good to go. I believe most people don't need AWS to accomplish what they are looking for (subjective for sure). I also find it not the savings or experience that is in the marketing materials or sales pitches. This isn't a binary right or wrong decision, all we need is a skinned cat at the end of the day.