Good points, but it remains to be seen whether the portability of large serverless apps is sufficient to prevent the providers from squeezing their customers once they are deeply established.
The fact that there’s three major cloud providers (who will at the very least compete on customer acquisition) is a point in favor of this, but it’s definitely an experiment. In my mind, this is as much about negotiating power as it is about technical tradeoffs.
Well, there is a cost to be portable and the cost to adapt an app that's not portable.
Whether it's DB independence or cloud provider independence, from my experience it's cheaper to pay the cost of the migration when you know you want to migrate (even if it involves rewriting some parts) rather than paying it everyday by writing portable code.
Most of the time the portable code you write becomes obsolete before you want to port it.
> it's cheaper to pay the cost of the migration when you know you want to migrate
Agreed, on principle and based on experience. This does require you have reasonable abstractions in place as otherwise you’ll end up refactoring before you can migrate. But that’s a good thing in any case.
The fact that there’s three major cloud providers (who will at the very least compete on customer acquisition) is a point in favor of this, but it’s definitely an experiment. In my mind, this is as much about negotiating power as it is about technical tradeoffs.