A whole bunch of meeting bots use Recall.

Recall is on AWS.

Everyone using Recall for meeting recordings is down.

In some domains, a single SaaS dominates the domain and if that SaaS sits on AWS, it doesn't matter if AWS is 35% marketshare because the SaaS that dominates 80% of the domain is on AWS so the effect is wider than just AWS's market share.

We're on GCP, but we have various SaaS vendors on AWS so any of the services that rely on AWS are gone.

Many chat/meeting services also run on AWS Chime so even if you're not on AWS, if a vendor uses Chime, that service is down.

Part of the company I work at is doing infrastructure consulting. We're in fact seeing companies moving to bare metal, with the rise of turnkey container systems between Nutanix, Purestorage, Redhat, ... At this point in time, a few remotely managed boxes in a rack can offer a really good experience for containers for very little effort.

And this comes in a time with regulations like Dora and the BaFin tightening things - managing these boxes becomes less effort than maintaining compliance across vendors.

Because your competitor probably depends on a service which uses aws. They may host all their stuff in azure, but use cloudfront as cache which uses aws and goes down.

because your competitors are probably using services that depend on AWS.

it's a weird effect:

imagine a beach, with icecream vendors. You'd think it would be optimal for two vendors to each split it half north, half south. However, in wanting to steal some of the other vendors' customers, you end up with two icecream stands in the center.

So too with outages. Safety / loss of blame in numbers.

The question really becomes, did you make money that you wouldn't have made when services came back up? As in, will people just shift their purchase time to tomorrow when you are back online? Sure, some % is completely lost but you have to weigh that lost amount against the ongoing costs to be multi-cloud (or multi-provider) and the development time against those costs. For most people I think it's cheaper to just be down for a few hours. Yes, this outage is longer than any I can remember but most people will shrug it off and move on once it comes back up fully.

At the end of the day most of us aren't working on super critical things. No one is dying because they can't purchase X item online or use Y SaaS. And, more importantly, customers are _not_ willing to pay the extra for you to host your backend in multiple regions/providers.

In my contracts (for my personal company) I call out the single-point-of-failure very clearly and I've never had anyone balk. If they did I'd offer then resiliency (for a price) and I have no doubt that they would opt to "roll the dice" instead of pay.

Lastly, it's near-impossible to verify what all your vendors are using so even if you manage to get everything resilient it only takes one chink in the armor the bring it all down (See: us-east-1 and various AWS services that rely on that even if you don't host anything in us-east-1 directly).

I'm not trying to downplay this, pretend it doesn't matter, or anything like that. Just trying to point out that most people don't care because no one seems to care (or want to pay for it). I wish that was different (I wish a lot of things were different) but wishing doesn't pay my bills and so if customers don't want to pay for resiliency then this is what they get and I'm at peace with that.

Sure but to their point, you're off the hook if half of the internet is down.. it's sort of like: "No one gets fired for picking IBM".