In the case of Delta, their outage was much longer than everyone else because they refused help from both Crowdstrike and Microsoft. So their defense is basically "the damages could have been mitigated if you'd listened to us".
Delta's position is the Microsoft actively recommended and coordinated with CrowdStrike to the extent that they are co-responsible for outcomes.
In a large enterprise like Delta, the vendors do work together in deployment and support.
Yes, there's often a great deal of finger-pointing between vendors when something like this happens,
but in general vendors so intimately linked have each other on speed-dial.
It would not shock me to learn that Delta has email or chat threads involving CrowdStrike, Microsoft, and Delta employees working together during rollouts and upgrades, prior to this event.
As far as refusing help,
why is that funny?
If someone does something stupid and knocks you down,
it's perfectly reasonable to distrust the help they offer,
especially if that help requires giving them even more trust than what they've already burned.
Changing vendors and choosing one that's more reliable is a perfectly sensible outcome of this situation once your system are back up and you're no longer hemorrhaging money.
During an ongoing incident, when all of your operations are down, is not the time for it though. If you think there's even a 1% chance that the help can help, you should probably take it and fix your immediate problem. You can re-evaluate your decisions and vendor choices after that.
> If someone does something stupid and knocks you down, it's perfectly reasonable to distrust the help they offer, especially if that help requires giving them even more trust than what they've already burned.
Yeah it smacks of Experian offering you a year of "free identity theft protection" after having lost your personal data in a breach.
That's kind of typical of how much companies have been allowed to externalize costs.
It's never about how the company at fault should have done better,
rather it typically boils down to some variant of "the free markets provided you with a choice about who you trust and it was up to you to collect and evaluate all the information available to make your choices".
That’s kinda what aws tells people when its services go down. If your backend can’t take a short outage without weeks of recovery then it’s just a matter of time.
It’s probably true, but seems like an odd stance to take from a PR perspective or a “selling other clients in the future” perspective.