While its flagship Dreamforce event was in full swing on Wednesday, Salesforce was triaging a roughly seven and a half hour-long service outage that disrupted user access and caused “severe delays” and intermittent errors. Some customers were also unable to submit new support cases.

The service outage hit at 3:50 a.m. EDT, impacting “multiple instances across all regions,” Salesforce reported. It was marked resolved right around 3 p.m. EDT, after several hours of monitoring to determine that fixes had been successful.

Salesforce initially pegged the issue to an “external dependency failure” impacting the legacy login server. A core system component experienced increased load, limiting its capacity to process requests. The company confirmed that there were no issues with third-party infrastructure.

Beyond the obvious embarrassment from the outage occurring during Dreamforce, an analyst said the incident highlights a cloud resilience problem, rather than purely a legacy one.

“Cloud does not eliminate architectural dependencies,” said Abbas Jaffery, a principal advisory director at Info-Tech Research Group. “It can sometimes make them less visible. And when the platform is your system of record, those hidden dependencies become an enterprise risk rather than simply a technology risk.”

Rolling restarts, persistent issues throughout the day

Salesforce began experiencing service issues at 3:50 a.m. EDT on September 16, and initial investigation determined that requests were stalling while waiting on responses from an internal login service that was using up available server resources.

Initially, Salesforce blocked application programming interface (API) endpoints and attempted rolling restarts to revive the service, then pushed out fixes region-by-region. At 7:20 a.m., some customers were seeing service return to normal, and Salesforce was working on a “code-level permanent fix.”

However, the rollout did not complete for a number of instances, and some automated fixes didn’t fully resolve the issue. For example, customers reported that scheduled jobs were not running as expected, even after service was restored. Salesforce manually restarted those ‌instances.

Salesforce later reported that the impact radius was “narrower than initially understood” and saw signs of recovery by around 11 a.m. EDT, with most customers coming back online.

A sub-set of Hyperforce instances were the last to be restored. Mitigations were in place across all instances by 11:39 a.m. EDT, and Salesforce continued to monitor the issue until marking the incident resolved at 2:59 p.m. EDT.

“We apologize for how this incident affected you and your business,” Salesforce posted on its incident blog. “We will undertake a full investigation of the incident, establishing the technical trigger, the underlying cause, and preventive action to avoid a repeat in the future.”

Creating a ‘temporal’ data problem

For customers for whom Salesforce is a system of record, several hours of authentication and service disruption can create a “temporal data problem,” Info-Tech’s Jaffery explained. “Events that should have happened at different points in time may occur later, fail altogether, or arrive out of sequence,” he said.

For instance, a customer interaction may occur through another channel while Salesforce is unavailable, but an integration, workflow, or scheduled process that normally records or propagates that event is unable to run.

This has several potential consequences, Jaffery said. Transactions and customer service processes are delayed; APIs and middleware may accumulate retries, timeouts, and queues. Records can become temporarily inconsistent, and scheduled jobs and workflows may be missed. Employees could lose visibility into customer history or case status, even when the underlying data has not been lost, creating a “data divergence.”

The first mistake would be to assume that just because users can log in, the incident is over, he noted. “Enterprises should move immediately into a reconciliation and integrity phase,” Jaffery advised. This means not only verifying interactive access, but APIs, integrations, scheduled jobs, queues, workflows, automation, authentication flows, and downstream systems.

Enterprises should ask what transactions failed, partially completed, or were duplicated during the outage? Which scheduled or asynchronous processes did not execute? Did integrations retry successfully, or did they create a backlog or retry storm? Are downstream systems now consistent with Salesforce?

Security teams should also validate authentication and session behavior, privileged access, integration credentials, and any emergency changes made during recovery, Jaffery explained. “The most important question is not simply ‘Is Salesforce back?’, but ‘What did the business expect to happen during the outage, and can we prove that it actually happened?,’” he said.

What to look for in post-incident reports

A credible post-incident review from Salesforce should establish a causal chain: The trigger, dependency failure, technical propagation, customer impact, detection, mitigation, recovery, and permanent corrective action, Jaffery said.

The company should be able to answer these questions, he said:

• What was the actual initiating failure and why did the failure propagate into the login path?
• Why could the affected dependency consume sufficient capacity to affect core services?
• Why didn’t isolation or failover prevent the impact?
• Why did initial remediation attempts fail and why did the subsequent rollout require additional intervention?
• What safeguards are being added to prevent recurrence?
• How will Salesforce demonstrate that the corrective action actually works under failure conditions?

Service restoration simply tells customers: “We got it working again,” he noted. But root cause analysis tells customers: “We understand why it failed, why our controls didn’t prevent it, and what has changed so that the same failure mode is less likely to recur.”

It’s not just about ‘legacy’ pieces in the stack

One architectural lesson is that a legacy component does not have to be large to be critical, Jaffery pointed out. An older authentication service can remain part of a modern stack, and therefore become a dependency for newer services.

“The component’s age matters less than its position in the dependency graph, its blast radius, and the quality of its isolation and failure handling,” he said, pointing to this incident’s progression: Requests stalled waiting on an internal login service due to increased resource consumption led to investigation into an external dependency failure, which in turn revealed impact on a legacy login server. Finally, Salesforce said, “core system components experienced increased load, which limited its capacity to process request”.

That is a classic resilience question, Jaffery pointed out: Can a failure in one dependency remain in that one dependency, or does it become a platform-wide failure?

Modernization should not be identified simply by how much old technology has been replaced, he noted, it should also measure dependency concentration, isolation, “graceful degradation,” recovery paths, and failure blast radius.

“For enterprise architects, that is the real takeaway,” he said.

Maybe driven by agentic AI, exacerbated by layoffs

At this point, there are no obvious signs that this was a security incident, noted David Shipley, CEO of Beauceron Security. “Right now, this bears all the hallmarks of an update gone horribly wrong.”

He pointed to an incident in December 2025 when Amazon’s internal AI coding agent, Kiro, caused a 13-hour AWS outage in a mainland China region, noting, “I’m not going to be shocked if we don’t see some kind of agent role in this kind of scale disaster.”

Significant Salesforce layoffs over the last few years could also have had a negative impact on the outage and recovery, he added. “Having it happen during Dreamforce had to be all kinds of hell, though, for their sales and customer support teams,” he said. “Pour one out for them as they work on rebuilding relationships, face-to-face.”

This article originally appeared on CIO.com.

The consulting firms told us this would be different. They arrived with slick slide decks, expensive vendor packages, and promises to revolutionize how we do business. Their message was clear: Digital transformation was no longer optional; it was existential. Companies that failed to adapt would be left behind and crushed by more agile competitors with cloud-native architecture and data-driven strategies.

That was back in 2020, when Boston Consulting Group released research showing that 70% of digital transformations failed to meet their objectives. The consulting industry rushed to publish its frameworks, maturity models, and proprietary methodologies. Enterprise IT organizations spent millions on these programs, hoping to finally bridge the gap between technological capability and business value.

Several years on, I can say that little has changed. If anything, the issue has worsened.

The damage that was done

Most digital transformations didn’t just fail to deliver ROI; they actively damaged the organizations that undertook them. Technical debt accumulated as companies deployed monolithic cloud platforms that were neither modular nor scalable. Business misalignment became endemic as transformations focused on technology for its own sake rather than on solving actual business problems. Organizations found themselves locked into expensive vendor relationships that failed to deliver on their promises.

I’ve spoken with dozens of enterprise CIOs and CTOs over the past several years, and the stories are remarkably consistent. Transformations that were supposed to take six months stretched to two years. Budgets estimated at a few million exploded to six, eight, even twelve times the original projection. The consulting firms had excellent PowerPoint skills, but when it came to implementation, the results were consistently disappointing.

The damage wasn’t just financial. Organizations lost confidence in their IT capabilities. Talented people left because they were tired of being managed by consultants who couldn’t code their way out of a paper bag. Business stakeholders grew cynical about technology initiatives, having been burned too often by projects that promised transformation but delivered chaos.

Why the consulting models failed

Let’s be direct about what happened. The consulting industry discovered that digital transformation was highly profitable. They could sell their methodologies, vendor partnerships, and “best practices” frameworks, and charge premium fees for implementation support. The problem was that these frameworks were largely one-size-fits-all approaches disguised as bespoke solutions.

A major global bank doesn’t have the same requirements as a regional healthcare provider, yet both were sold the same transformation playbook. The consulting firms had invested too heavily in their methodologies to admit that the real answer might be to start with business requirements and work backward toward technology. Instead, they assembled prepackaged solutions optimized for vendor partnerships rather than clients’ actual needs.

The talent problem was equally severe. The consulting firms could certainly talk about digital transformation; they had excellent slides and compelling narratives. But when it came to implementation, the skill gaps were glaring. These organizations assembled solutions by following playbooks rather than understanding how the technology components actually fit together. The result was systems that were overengineered, overprovisioned, and ultimately underperforming.

Cloud computing was supposed to be the great enabler, but many organizations misunderstood and misapplied it. Organizations lifted and shifted their existing problems along with their existing architecture. Monolithic applications running on expensive virtual machines became the new normal, with organizations paying cloud costs that far exceeded their on-premises expenses, yet achieving none of the scalability benefits the cloud was supposed to deliver.

What we still need to learn

As we grapple with the next wave of technology transformation—this time centered on artificial intelligence—the lessons from digital transformation failures should be front and center. The first and most important lesson is brutally simple: Focus on business needs first. I know this sounds obvious, but I guarantee you that every failed digital transformation project lost sight of its core business requirements. They built technology for technology’s sake without understanding the problems they were trying to solve.

Too many transformations focused on individual business units rather than enterprisewide strategies. The result was a collection of systems that couldn’t work together cohesively. Isolated solutions felt like progress but actually made integration harder and created new dependencies that hadn’t existed before.

Organizations also need to invest in serious training for their people. I’m not talking about sending IT staff to vendor certification programs that teach them to pass tests on proprietary platforms. I mean fundamental architectural education that helps people understand how to assemble technology effectively.

We face a massive shortage of AI, cloud, and security architects, as well as other technical leaders who can design solutions that work. Rather than addressing this gap, organizations are placing unqualified people in these roles and hoping for the best. It’s past time to invest in education.

The case for simplicity

Here’s something that also should be obvious but clearly isn’t: You can solve the same business problem with $1 million or $20 million, depending on the sophistication of the IT organization building the solution. Both designs will work reasonably well, but one solution costs 20 times more because it is overbuilt and overengineered.

Organizations are adding AI to everything under the sun, even when simpler solutions would work just as well. They’re overprovisioning cloud resources because they lack the architectural discipline to rightsize their infrastructure. They’re building systems designed for scale they’ll never reach, complexity they don’t need, and features no one requested.

The path forward requires a minimalist approach. Build systems that are good enough for their intended purpose. Focus on requirements rather than capabilities. Resist the temptation to adopt every new technology just because it’s available.

Digital transformation didn’t fail because the technology was flawed. It failed because we forgot that technology exists to serve the business, not the other way around. To succeed with AI, we need to remember that fundamental truth. And remember the consulting industry’s tendency to sell us expensive solutions to problems we don’t have.

After two decades of cloud architecture consulting, I see an unchanging pattern in enterprise deployments. Organizations approach me with unexpectedly high cloud bills, operational chaos, and architectures that look good on paper but cause headaches in production. The common thread is almost always the same. Fundamental concepts that should be foundational to any cloud deployment are treated as optional or ignored altogether.

I’m not talking about exotic requirements, bleeding-edge technologies, or vendor-specific best practices. Basic engineering principles are somehow getting lost amid the excitement of cloud adoption. I wish I could say it’s rare, but after working with organizations across industries and geographies for years, I can confirm that missing these fundamentals is more common than most people realize. The results are predictable. Bills grow faster than business value, architectures require constant firefighting, and teams are stretched too thin to optimize anything.

The good news? You don’t have to start over, but you do have to go back to basics. Here are three concepts most cloud architects overlook that will make your architecture dramatically more valuable and efficient.

Identifying common ground

When deploying heterogeneous architecture, especially in multicloud environments, organizations must aggressively reduce silos. This means establishing common control planes for security, governance, and operations. You won’t get there by relying on whatever proprietary technology each cloud provider offers out of the box. Each provider wants you locked into their way of managing things. That is fine for simple deployments, but when you are running across multiple clouds and on-premises systems, proprietary control planes introduce redundancy, complexity, and cost.

You need a single control layer that spans your entire environment. Instead of managing 10 different security solutions from 10 different providers, you have one. Instead of separate identity management systems for each cloud, you need one that works everywhere. This eliminates the need to change security parameters in five different consoles, maintain five different skill sets for five different operational models, and reconcile five different governance frameworks. The common control plane ties everything together.

This might sound hard, but it’s not as bad as you think. (I will cover the specific patterns in a future article.) The real issue is that most architects have never been trained to think this way. They were taught to select the best services from each provider rather than abstract away the differences. This fundamental gap costs organizations real money every single day.

Cost observability and optimization

Most architects treat cost visibility and optimization as afterthoughts, things that can be bolted on after the architecture is in place. That backward approach shows up in the results. Without cost observability and optimization baked into your architecture from day one, you cannot understand where your money is going, where waste is accumulating, or where you should make changes to align expenses with delivered value.

The more complex and heterogeneous your environment, the more critical this becomes. You need a unified cost observability layer that spans public and private clouds and your own infrastructure. This is about building a layer that aggregates cost data from everywhere, provides a single source of truth for spending, and delivers the insights needed to actively optimize. Without this, you are flying blind, making decisions based on incomplete data and discovering problems only after the invoice arrives.

Too many organizations fail to gain control of their cloud spending because their billing data is scattered across multiple consoles, with no way to correlate usage across providers. They cannot see which teams, projects, or services are driving costs. They miss opportunities to right-size, consolidate, or eliminate waste. You cannot improve what you cannot measure. Without a common cost observability and optimization layer built into your architecture, you will never achieve the efficiency the cloud was supposed to deliver.

Consider the human element

Here is an uncomfortable truth most architects do not want to discuss: The more complex your architecture is, the broader the range of skills you will need to keep it running. Complexity requires expertise, and expertise requires hiring, training, and retention. If your architecture demands 15 different skill sets to operate, you’d better have a plan for finding and retaining the people with those skills.

I have seen beautifully designed architectures fail because the organization could not meet hiring requirements. They compromised by hiring underqualified individuals, which led to operational failures, security gaps, and mounting technical debt. The architecture itself was sound. The human infrastructure around it was not. This is a solvable problem. It starts with acknowledging that you are not designing for yourself. You are designing for the team that will inherit this system after you have moved on to your next assignment or promotion.

The solution isn’t just simplifying architecture, though that should be a goal. The key is to consider human factors in your design. What skills are required? How can you find and train people? What cultural changes are necessary for effective operation? These questions are essential; ignoring them risks failure.

The simple bottom line

I understand why most cloud architects miss these basic principles. No single course or book brings all of this together in one place. Cloud architecture has become a collection of best practices, vendor recommendations, and conference talking points, rather than a disciplined engineering discipline focused on business value.

As a result, architectures end up optimized in the wrong places, if they are optimized at all. They are expensive to run, difficult to secure, and nearly impossible to operate at scale without constant intervention. The cloud promises efficiency, yet we are not delivering it because we have lost sight of the fundamentals.

It’s time to go back to basics. Commonality, human factors, and cost observability and optimization are the three things that separate architectures that create value from those that create cost. Incorporate these concepts into your architecture and you’ll get ahead of most production systems in use today.

The model of the forward deployed engineer is sweeping through enterprise IT like a gold rush, and I’m concerned that many companies don’t understand what they’re signing up for.

Let’s start with the headline numbers. AWS announced a $1 billion investment in a new Forward Deployed Engineering organization. Google Cloud committed $750 million to expand similar programs. Microsoft has been running Azure-focused embedded engineering teams for years, including partnerships with Accenture to scale forward deployed engineering practices. All three are pitching the same story: We’ll send engineers to work directly with your teams, help you deploy AI, and accelerate your digital transformation. You get top-tier technical talent for free, and we get to partner with you on your journey.

It sounds reasonable on the surface. It sounds collaborative, even generous. But I’ve been in this industry long enough to know that when a multi-billion-dollar company offers you something for free, they’re sure to get much more than they give.

What you actually get

The forward deployed engineer model isn’t new. The consulting industry has been doing some version of it for decades. What makes this different is the scale and the direct financial incentive behind it.

These engineers work for the cloud provider. They’re not your employees. They’re not independent consultants. They’re technically excellent professionals who are being paid to solve your immediate problems while simultaneously building relationships and architectures that favor their employer’s ecosystem. Think about it from their perspective. Those forward engineers are evaluated on whether customers succeed with their employer’s platform. They’re rewarded when enterprises adopt more services from that platform. Their career advancement depends on making AWS, Google Cloud, or Microsoft Azure the obvious choice for all of your technical decisions.

This isn’t a criticism of the individual engineers. Many of them are genuinely talented and genuinely want to help. But they’re operating within a system that rewards specific outcomes, and those outcomes align with the vendor’s financial interests, not necessarily yours.

The problem no one talks about

Here’s what I see happening at enterprises right now. A company decides they need help deploying AI. A cloud provider offers to embed engineers at no additional cost. Those engineers work alongside internal teams, make architectural recommendations, and help build out systems. Six months later, the company has a production AI system running on a single cloud platform, built by people with deep expertise in that specific platform.

The problem? Nobody evaluated whether that platform was actually the best choice for the business. Nobody looked at alternatives. Nobody asked whether a multicloud architecture or best-of-breed approach might deliver better results at lower cost.

The engineers embedded in these programs are not going to recommend that you split your workloads across providers. They’re not going to suggest you use open source tools where they make sense. They’re not going to point you toward a competitor when their employer’s solution will work well enough. That’s not how these programs are designed to function. What you’re getting is optimized architecture for a single cloud brand, not optimized architecture for your business.

The financial reality will hit

The bills are going to come due, and they’re going to be painful. I’ve watched this pattern play out before. When enterprises lock into a single cloud provider through these embedded engineering programs, they often discover two or three years later that they’re paying premiums that their more independent-thinking competitors avoided.

The reasons are straightforward. When you’re architecting systems around a single platform, you naturally fall into usage patterns that favor that platform’s pricing structures. You use their managed databases instead of portable alternatives. You adopt their AI services instead of evaluating third-party options. You build workflows that only work within their ecosystem. And when it comes time to renegotiate or benchmark against alternatives, you find that migrating would cost more than accepting whatever pricing they offer.

I’ve spent the past decade helping companies untangle from these situations. I’ve seen organizations with cloud bills 15 to 20 times higher than they should be, unable to migrate because their entire AI infrastructure is built on proprietary services that only work on one platform. The forward deployed engineer programs are accelerating this problem. They’re making it easier to get into these situations and harder to get out.

Think before you commit

Before you accept one of these programs, consider these three recommendations.

First, require independent architecture oversight from day one. Hire or engage architects who work for your company, not for your cloud provider. They should evaluate every recommendation made by embedded engineers against business requirements and compare options across providers. This isn’t about being suspicious of the engineers. It’s about ensuring that decisions are made with your interests in mind.

Second, demand a clear exit strategy before you begin. Ask the cloud provider to document which proprietary services you’re using, what migration paths exist, and what the cost would be to move to an alternative platform. If they can’t provide that information, or if the migration costs seem impossibly high, that’s a sign that you’re building technical debt that will be very expensive to service later.

Third, benchmark your costs continuously. Set up internal processes to compare your cloud spending against industry benchmarks and against what your competitors might be paying for similar workloads. Don’t wait until your contract renewal to discover that you’re paying premium prices. Monitor expenses from the beginning, and be willing to challenge your cloud provider if you’re not getting value that justifies the cost.

The bottom line

The forward deployed engineers are solving real problems. Enterprises genuinely struggle with AI deployment, and having experienced engineers available to help is valuable. I’m not suggesting these programs are fundamentally bad. However, they’re being marketed as neutral partnerships when they’re actually strategic sales programs designed to lock enterprises into specific platforms. The helpful engineers showing up at your office are building dependencies that will be very difficult to break. The “free” technical assistance is being funded by margins on services you’ll be buying for years.

Go in with your eyes open. Use these programs but add your own independent oversight. Build architectures that you could leave if you needed to. And don’t let the immediate satisfaction of having problems solved today blind you to the financial consequences that will arrive tomorrow.

The European Commission’s latest push to reduce dependence on foreign technology providers is not surprising. If Europe believes that critical digital services could be disrupted by foreign governments, foreign legal systems, or foreign-owned providers, it will, of course, respond. That concern is now being expressed in the language of “kill switch” risk, meaning the fear that the cloud, AI, or semiconductor services that Europe depends on could be interrupted or constrained by forces beyond its control.

At a high level, that concern is valid. Europe is right to worry about strategic dependence. If critical public services, regulated workloads, or national-interest systems rely on infrastructure controlled elsewhere, sovereignty becomes more than a policy slogan. It becomes an architectural issue. However, I am skeptical of the leap from identifying the problem to assuming that a policy response will produce a cleaner, safer, or even more sovereign market. There is a good chance it may do the opposite.

What Europe is trying to protect

The motivation behind this effort is clear. Europe wants to reduce its dependence on cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors from providers it does not fully control. It wants to ensure that core digital services cannot be switched off, legally constrained, or strategically influenced from outside the region. That is the public policy objective, and from a government standpoint, it makes sense.

The problem is that cloud markets don’t often respond to political intent as policymakers hope. The public cloud market is concentrated among a few big providers because scale matters. The hyperscalers have built global infrastructure, extensive services, ecosystems, and operating models that smaller regional players can’t match. Enterprises chose them for operational advantages, not geopolitical reasons.

Europe now finds itself in a difficult position. It wants sovereignty, but it also wants the benefits of scale, reliability, feature depth, and cost efficiency that usually come from very large cloud providers. Those goals do not always align.

Sowing enterprise confusion

One likely outcome of this push is that European enterprises will become increasingly confused about which public clouds they should select or avoid. That is not a minor point. Most enterprises already struggle with cloud strategy when the drivers are technical, financial, and operational. Add political sovereignty requirements, and the market becomes even harder to navigate.

Enterprises will now need to ask a more complex set of questions. Is a US-based hyperscaler with a localized European operating model acceptable? Is a European-branded sovereign cloud built on American technology better? Is a regional provider safer simply because it is smaller and local, even if it offers fewer services, weaker security tools, less resilience, and a less certain long-term future? At what point does “sovereign enough” become a legal or political judgment rather than a technical one?

This is where the market gets muddy. Policy discussions often imply a binary distinction between foreign and sovereign. In reality, cloud architectures are full of hybrids, partnerships, licensing arrangements, embedded dependencies, and supply chain layers, making neat categorization difficult. Enterprises do not buy cloud services based on a political slogan. They must navigate stacks of contracts, services, support structures, compliance obligations, and technical capabilities. The more politics enters that decision process, the less clarity there may be for buyers trying to make rational platform choices.

Sovereign clouds may not fix things

There is another reality that I think policymakers underestimate. Increased investment in sovereign cloud providers does not automatically create a durable sovereign cloud sector. In fact, history suggests the opposite.

Governments and enterprises may push investment toward smaller sovereign providers, but those providers still face the same brutal economics of the cloud market. They need capital, scale, customers, engineering depth, and ecosystem gravity. Many smaller providers will struggle to compete over time. Some will fail. Others will narrow their focus. Many will eventually be acquired, directly or indirectly, by larger players, including the very US-based cloud providers Europe is trying to reduce dependence on.

That’s the irony. Political pressure may spark a burst of sovereign cloud activity, but market gravity tends to reward scale. Sovereign cloud investment may create a temporary diversification, but in the long run, it could still end in concentration.

Sovereignty is not a bad goal, but the cloud business is structurally difficult. Running a competitive cloud platform is expensive. Matching hyperscaler capabilities is even harder. Enterprises eventually notice the gaps in services, AI tools, ecosystem support, geographic resilience, and operating maturity. When they do, they drift back toward the biggest and most capable providers.

Fragmentation comes before security

My concern is that Europe may be entering a period when cloud architecture is driven less by technical fit and more by political signaling. That rarely leads to simplicity. It usually results in fragmented strategies, duplicated platforms, inconsistent governance, and long procurement cycles.

Some organizations will choose a sovereign-first model for political reasons. Others will remain with hyperscalers but add contractual and architectural safeguards. Others will adopt a multicloud approach purely to avoid appearing overly dependent on one provider. Still others will split workloads by regulatory sensitivity, which sounds sensible until integration costs and operational complexity add up.

This is how confusion mounts. The question shifts from “Which platform best supports my workload?” to “Which platform is politically safest this quarter?” That is not a stable architectural framework.

Skeptical but attentive

I understand exactly why Europe is raising this issue. No responsible government wants critical digital services held hostage by external dependencies. That concern is rational, but rational concern does not guarantee rational market outcomes. My skepticism is not about whether digital sovereignty matters. It does. But can policy alone produce genuine long-term autonomy or will it create a more confusing procurement environment? At the same time, the market will quietly continue to consolidate around the largest global platforms.

The uncomfortable truth is that sovereignty is easier to announce than to implement. Cloud sovereignty is especially difficult because cloud markets reward scale, capital, ecosystem strength, and breadth of services. Those forces do not disappear simply because a regulator seeks more regional control. I think this issue will become more important over the next few years as cloud, AI, and geopolitical power become even more tightly linked. Europe is right to ask hard questions about dependence. But the answers are likely to be messy, and market outcomes may not look as sovereign as policymakers hope.

I don’t expect to see a clean break from foreign cloud providers. I do expect more hybrid arrangements, more sovereign branding, more enterprise uncertainty, more investment in regional providers, and eventually more consolidation than many people currently anticipate. That is not a failure of the idea. It is just the reality of how cloud markets tend to work.

The real challenge for Europe is not identifying the risk. It is building a response that does not create more confusion than the problem it is trying to solve.

It is tempting to date cloud computing from the launch of Amazon S3 in 2006 and the rise of infrastructure as a service (IaaS) that followed. That was certainly the moment the market changed in a visible, irreversible way. But the truth is that cloud began earlier, in the 1990s, when software as a service (SaaS), application hosting, managed services providers, and various forms of remote subscription computing started to reshape how enterprises thought about owning and operating technology. Even then, the core value proposition was familiar: Let someone else run the infrastructure, abstract the complexity, deliver capability as a service, and allow the business to consume only what it needs.

What AWS changed was the scale, accessibility, and precision of the execution. Amazon turned infrastructure into a programmable utility. It made compute and storage available in ways that were elastic, self-service, API-driven, and globally reachable. That was the breakthrough. Enterprises had outsourced pieces of technology before, but now they could rent raw infrastructure with unprecedented speed and flexibility. The launch of Amazon S3 was especially important because it provided a durable, scalable storage foundation that became one of the building blocks for modern digital business.

AWS changed everything

Technology markets are rarely transformed by the first company to think of an idea. They are transformed by the first company to make that idea operationally real, economically viable, and broadly consumable. AWS did exactly that. It built a model for infrastructure as a service that allowed enterprises, startups, and eventually governments to rethink the entire life cycle of IT delivery.

Looking back from 2026, it is difficult to remember how radical this concept once seemed. At the time, many enterprise leaders considered public cloud too risky, too immature, too uncontrolled, or simply too foreign for conventional IT governance. There were concerns about security, compliance, vendor dependency, performance, data residency, and reliability. Many of those concerns were valid. Early cloud adoption often ran ahead of cloud maturity, and many organizations discovered that moving quickly did not always mean moving wisely.

Still, the economics of agility overwhelmed the inertia of the old model. Provisioning that once took months could be done in minutes. Capital expenditure gave way, at least in part, to operating expenditure. Experimental workloads became easier to justify. Digital businesses could scale without building data centers first. AWS led that transition, and the rest of the industry followed, including competitors that helped mature the market.

Cloud’s strengths and liabilities

If the first decade of cloud was about acceleration, the second decade was about correction. Enterprises learned that cloud was not automatically cheaper, not automatically simpler, and not automatically better. It was better when used with discipline. It was more cost-effective when architected intelligently. It was more resilient when governance, operations, and security were designed into the system rather than added later.

This is when the industry grew up. We learned about cloud financial management because too many organizations assumed elasticity would control cost, only to discover that unused resources, poor workload placement, and fragmented accountability could drive spending far beyond expectations. We learned that public cloud could provide extraordinary innovation and reach, but also that not every workload belongs there. Latency, sovereignty, compliance constraints, legacy integration challenges, and predictable high-volume workloads all forced a more nuanced view.

We also learned about concentration risk. As enterprises standardized on a small number of hyperscalers, questions emerged around resilience, lock-in, and strategic dependency. The answer was never simplistic multicloud posturing for its own sake. It was architectural realism. Use the public cloud where it creates a clear advantage. Keep options open where business risk requires it. Understand portability, but do not romanticize it. In other words, cloud became less ideological and more practical.

Cloud is now an assumption

Perhaps the most important shift of all is that we no longer debate whether cloud is real or whether enterprises should use it. That argument is over. Cloud is baked into the cake. It is part of enterprise operating reality. The modern enterprise assumes on-demand infrastructure, platform services, automation pipelines, managed databases, identity fabrics, observability stacks, and globally distributed application delivery. Even when workloads remain on-premises or at the edge, they are often built, governed, or operated with cloud-native thinking.

This is maturity. Cloud is not a project or a trend. It is not even a strategy by itself. It is an enabling model that now underpins enterprise strategy. Businesses no longer ask whether to adopt cloud in the abstract. They ask how much cloud, which cloud services, under what governance model, at what cost profile, and in support of which business outcomes.

That may sound less exciting than the early days of disruption, but it is actually the mark of success. The most powerful technologies eventually disappear into standard practice. Electricity, networking, virtualization, and mobile platforms all went through this process. Cloud has done the same.

How cloud supports the AI race

As enterprises move aggressively into AI, cloud has entered another pivotal phase. AI is not replacing cloud. It is intensifying the importance of cloud while also changing how value is measured. Training, tuning, deploying, and governing AI systems require immense computational scale, specialized infrastructure, distributed data access, and operational consistency. Public cloud providers are well positioned to offer those capabilities, particularly with GPUs, AI platforms, managed model services, and data integration tools.

But this is not a repeat of the early cloud era. Enterprises are more sober now. They know the importance of cost, latency, and data gravity. They know that governance and accountability matter more in AI than perhaps anywhere else in modern IT. The role of cloud in the AI race is therefore foundational, but not absolute. Some AI workloads will run in public cloud. Some will be distributed across edge computing environments. Some will remain in private environments for reasons of sovereignty, economics, or control. The key is not to force a universal answer. The key is to create an architecture that aligns AI ambitions with operational reality.

Cloud should play the role it has gradually earned: not as a religion, but as a strategic utility. For AI, the cloud is where many enterprises will source scale, experimentation speed, global reach, and managed innovation. The winning organizations understand where cloud creates leverage and where other operating models make more sense.

Changing how enterprises think

The real story of the past 20 years is not just that AWS launched S3 and helped popularize infrastructure as a service. It is that cloud changed enterprise behavior. It normalized service consumption over asset ownership. It moved architecture toward abstraction, automation, and modularity. It forced IT organizations to broker capability rather than build everything from scratch. It redefined speed as a core competitive requirement.

And now, as AI becomes the next forcing function, cloud stands less as a novelty and more as the platform on which the next era will be built. That is a remarkable outcome for something that, in many ways, started with the old idea that computing could be delivered remotely on a subscription basis. We have been heading here for longer than many people realize. In the past two decades, led in large measure by AWS and the broader hyperscale movement it accelerated, cloud has evolved from a gamble to an indispensable foundation.

Hard to believe? Yes. But also inevitable in retrospect.

For years, the cloud market has made a simple promise: Move workloads to large-scale platforms, gain better resilience, and worry less about downtime. That promise was never entirely wrong, but it is becoming less complete. The latest findings from Uptime Institute’s seventh Annual Outage Analysis suggest that the outage landscape is changing in ways that should concern both cloud providers and cloud customers. The biggest risks are no longer limited to broken physical infrastructure. They are increasingly tied to the complexity of the systems used to run, coordinate, update, and recover that infrastructure.

The most alarming number in the report is that IT and networking issues accounted for 23% of impactful outages in 2024. Uptime Institute links these increases to growing IT and network complexity; the long-term shift toward colocation, cloud, and third-party digital services; and the resulting increase in change-management failures and misconfigurations. That number is more than a statistical footnote. It points to a structural change in how outages happen and why cloud outages are becoming such a stubborn problem.

Hardware redundancy can protect against component failures, but it doesn’t help much when the outage stems from a bad configuration, an automation error, a faulty network change, or an underappreciated control-plane dependency. In those cases, the infrastructure itself may remain intact while the system that governs it breaks down. The industry is learning that resiliency is less about duplicating equipment and more about managing complexity. Today’s increasingly distributed and software-defined environments cannot operate safely at scale.

Failures at the operational level

Uptime’s findings show that power remains the leading cause of major outages, underscoring that traditional infrastructure engineering still matters a great deal. But even as providers continue to improve physical resilience, outages can still arise from the digital and procedural layers above it. Cloud platforms are now dense stacks of services, APIs, orchestration systems, software-defined networks, identity controls, failover logic, and third-party dependencies. That complexity creates more possible points of interaction and more opportunities for an error in one layer to cascade into several others.

This helps explain why outages can feel more surprising today than they did a decade ago. In older data center models, an outage often had a more apparent root cause, such as a power event, a cooling failure, or a hardware fault. In cloud environments, the trigger may be a small configuration change that propagates across regions, a policy update that unintentionally blocks service communication, or a network control failure that affects seemingly unrelated services. These are not failures of raw infrastructure capacity. They are failures of complexity management.

The report’s language around change management and misconfiguration is especially important because it challenges one of the most common assumptions in the cloud market: that scale automatically produces better operational outcomes. The reality? Scale can magnify both strengths and weaknesses. Large cloud providers have more engineering talent, more sophisticated tools, and more redundancy than almost any enterprise customer. But they also run far more interconnected systems at far greater speeds with far more automation. A single process failure can have a wider blast radius.

Another important lesson from the Uptime analysis is that automation has not removed the human factor. If anything, it has changed its form. Even in highly automated environments, human error remains central to the problem. The report notes that in 2025, the share of outages caused by human failure to follow procedures rose by 10 percentage points compared with 2024. A related industry summary of the report notes that 58% of human error-related outages were caused by staff failing to follow established procedures.

That matters because cloud providers often position automation as the answer to reliability. Automation is essential, but it only works as well as the operational model that surrounds it. If teams deploy changes too quickly, rollback paths are weak, approval chains are bypassed, or procedures are incomplete, automation can accelerate failure rather than prevent it. In a modern cloud environment, a human mistake is rarely just a single keystroke. It is more often a design weakness in process, governance, testing, or accountability.

This is also why customers should resist the comforting notion that outages are somebody else’s problem once workloads move to the cloud. Provider-side mistakes remain real, but customer architectures are increasingly entangled with provider networking, identity, observability, and platform services. When an outage occurs, the customer may not have caused it, but they still bear the business impact. The shared responsibility model does not end with security. It extends to resilience planning as well.

Better change management

The Uptime data points to a clear conclusion: Cloud providers need to treat operational discipline as a first-class design requirement. That starts with better change management. High-risk changes should be tested more aggressively, staged more gradually, and accompanied by stronger rollback mechanisms. Providers also need better dependency mapping to understand how a change in one control layer can affect services far beyond its immediate scope. If the system is too complex to clearly explain, it is too complex to operate.

Providers also need to improve procedural quality. The rise in outages caused by failing to follow procedures suggests that procedures are being ignored under operational pressure or that they are too cumbersome, outdated, or unclear for real production conditions. Neither explanation is comforting. Stronger runbooks, better training, more realistic failure drills, and tighter operational guardrails are not glamorous investments; they are increasingly central to resilience.

Another pressure point is visibility. Uptime notes that software-based and distributed resiliency tools can improve availability, but they also introduce new risks and complicate root-cause analysis. Cloud providers need more transparent and faster incident diagnosis, not just more layers of abstraction. Customers cannot build trust in resilience if every major incident becomes a long exercise in reconstructing opaque service dependencies after the fact.

Design with outages in mind

What’s the financial impact of more frequent problems? Uptime’s 2024 analysis found that 54% of respondents reported that their most recent significant outage cost more than $100,000, and 20% said it cost more than $1 million. These are not edge-case losses. They show that outages remain costly even if they are less frequent than in earlier years.

Customers need to stop evaluating cloud resilience through uptime promises and start evaluating it through failure behavior. How does a provider isolate faults? How transparent is incident communication? How portable are workloads if a major service degrades? How dependent is the architecture on a single region, network path, identity service, or control plane? These are not just technical questions; they are now critical business questions.

The core lesson from Uptime’s data is simple. Outages are becoming a bigger problem for cloud providers and customers because the cloud’s biggest vulnerabilities are increasingly tied to complexity, process failures, and control-plane mistakes, not just broken infrastructure. In addition to adding redundancy, the next phase of cloud improvement will focus on building systems that are easier to understand, safer to change, and more disciplined to operate.

For years, the cloud market has made a simple promise: Move workloads to large-scale platforms, gain better resilience, and worry less about downtime. That promise was never entirely wrong, but it is becoming less complete. The latest findings from Uptime Institute’s seventh Annual Outage Analysis suggest that the outage landscape is changing in ways that should concern both cloud providers and cloud customers. The biggest risks are no longer limited to broken physical infrastructure. They are increasingly tied to the complexity of the systems used to run, coordinate, update, and recover that infrastructure.

The most alarming number in the report is that IT and networking issues accounted for 23% of impactful outages in 2024. Uptime Institute links these increases to growing IT and network complexity; the long-term shift toward colocation, cloud, and third-party digital services; and the resulting increase in change-management failures and misconfigurations. That number is more than a statistical footnote. It points to a structural change in how outages happen and why cloud outages are becoming such a stubborn problem.

Hardware redundancy can protect against component failures, but it doesn’t help much when the outage stems from a bad configuration, an automation error, a faulty network change, or an underappreciated control-plane dependency. In those cases, the infrastructure itself may remain intact while the system that governs it breaks down. The industry is learning that resiliency is less about duplicating equipment and more about managing complexity. Today’s increasingly distributed and software-defined environments cannot operate safely at scale.

Failures at the operational level

Uptime’s findings show that power remains the leading cause of major outages, underscoring that traditional infrastructure engineering still matters a great deal. But even as providers continue to improve physical resilience, outages can still arise from the digital and procedural layers above it. Cloud platforms are now dense stacks of services, APIs, orchestration systems, software-defined networks, identity controls, failover logic, and third-party dependencies. That complexity creates more possible points of interaction and more opportunities for an error in one layer to cascade into several others.

This helps explain why outages can feel more surprising today than they did a decade ago. In older data center models, an outage often had a more apparent root cause, such as a power event, a cooling failure, or a hardware fault. In cloud environments, the trigger may be a small configuration change that propagates across regions, a policy update that unintentionally blocks service communication, or a network control failure that affects seemingly unrelated services. These are not failures of raw infrastructure capacity. They are failures of complexity management.

The report’s language around change management and misconfiguration is especially important because it challenges one of the most common assumptions in the cloud market: that scale automatically produces better operational outcomes. The reality? Scale can magnify both strengths and weaknesses. Large cloud providers have more engineering talent, more sophisticated tools, and more redundancy than almost any enterprise customer. But they also run far more interconnected systems at far greater speeds with far more automation. A single process failure can have a wider blast radius.

Another important lesson from the Uptime analysis is that automation has not removed the human factor. If anything, it has changed its form. Even in highly automated environments, human error remains central to the problem. The report notes that in 2025, the share of outages caused by human failure to follow procedures rose by 10 percentage points compared with 2024. A related industry summary of the report notes that 58% of human error-related outages were caused by staff failing to follow established procedures.

That matters because cloud providers often position automation as the answer to reliability. Automation is essential, but it only works as well as the operational model that surrounds it. If teams deploy changes too quickly, rollback paths are weak, approval chains are bypassed, or procedures are incomplete, automation can accelerate failure rather than prevent it. In a modern cloud environment, a human mistake is rarely just a single keystroke. It is more often a design weakness in process, governance, testing, or accountability.

This is also why customers should resist the comforting notion that outages are somebody else’s problem once workloads move to the cloud. Provider-side mistakes remain real, but customer architectures are increasingly entangled with provider networking, identity, observability, and platform services. When an outage occurs, the customer may not have caused it, but they still bear the business impact. The shared responsibility model does not end with security. It extends to resilience planning as well.

Better change management

The Uptime data points to a clear conclusion: Cloud providers need to treat operational discipline as a first-class design requirement. That starts with better change management. High-risk changes should be tested more aggressively, staged more gradually, and accompanied by stronger rollback mechanisms. Providers also need better dependency mapping to understand how a change in one control layer can affect services far beyond its immediate scope. If the system is too complex to clearly explain, it is too complex to operate.

Providers also need to improve procedural quality. The rise in outages caused by failing to follow procedures suggests that procedures are being ignored under operational pressure or that they are too cumbersome, outdated, or unclear for real production conditions. Neither explanation is comforting. Stronger runbooks, better training, more realistic failure drills, and tighter operational guardrails are not glamorous investments; they are increasingly central to resilience.

Another pressure point is visibility. Uptime notes that software-based and distributed resiliency tools can improve availability, but they also introduce new risks and complicate root-cause analysis. Cloud providers need more transparent and faster incident diagnosis, not just more layers of abstraction. Customers cannot build trust in resilience if every major incident becomes a long exercise in reconstructing opaque service dependencies after the fact.

Design with outages in mind

What’s the financial impact of more frequent problems? Uptime’s 2024 analysis found that 54% of respondents reported that their most recent significant outage cost more than $100,000, and 20% said it cost more than $1 million. These are not edge-case losses. They show that outages remain costly even if they are less frequent than in earlier years.

Customers need to stop evaluating cloud resilience through uptime promises and start evaluating it through failure behavior. How does a provider isolate faults? How transparent is incident communication? How portable are workloads if a major service degrades? How dependent is the architecture on a single region, network path, identity service, or control plane? These are not just technical questions; they are now critical business questions.

The core lesson from Uptime’s data is simple. Outages are becoming a bigger problem for cloud providers and customers because the cloud’s biggest vulnerabilities are increasingly tied to complexity, process failures, and control-plane mistakes, not just broken infrastructure. In addition to adding redundancy, the next phase of cloud improvement will focus on building systems that are easier to understand, safer to change, and more disciplined to operate.

Cloud computing has reached a crossroads. The high cost and data sensitivity of AI workloads are raising the appeal of private clouds, even as neoclouds and sovereign clouds shake up the cloud provider landscape. New cyberthreats, shifting compute requirements, and management complexity are adding to cloud complications.

Download the June 2026 issue of the Enterprise Spotlight from the editors of CIO, Computerworld, CSO, InfoWorld, and Network World, and learn how to navigate the latest cloud strategy developments.