An alternative hybrid cloud is ...
+ us-east-1
+ us-west-1
+ eu-west-1
+ etc
It all depends upon what risks you're trying to mitigate against and the cost of mitigation (both in terms of complexity and normalisation of features).
+ us-east-1
+ us-west-1
+ eu-west-1
+ etc
It all depends upon what risks you're trying to mitigate against and the cost of mitigation (both in terms of complexity and normalisation of features).
i.e. except for legacy (in which case a managed Kubernetes environment might be apt) then I would be more concerned about focusing on hybrid infrastructure over using serverless from purely competitive risks. It's not the cost saving but keeping up with competitor features.
... it's the old Jevons paradox. We rarely save money as we end up doing more stuff. That includes competitors which we need to keep parity with at the least.
If they are different data centres in different countries then that's multi-cloud. You're mitigating against most of the obvious risks. Mitigating against vendor risks can be very costly. How many tell users - "you can't use any more Office365" for fear of lock-in?
