One thing I do think is: It feels like we should be looking at this a bit more general, and saying things like "I need a Queue" not "I need an SQS Queue", allowing the operators to bind the Queue generic to an SQS queue on the backend, then using the application-facing spec to assert things like "it has to be FIFO, it has to guarantee exactly once delivery" etc. And if the backend cloud resource provider that is configured can't meet the requested spec, we get an error.

I don't know for sure if this would be better or worse. But for some generic cloud resources, like Object Buckets, Queues, PubSub, or SQL Databases, we can arrive at a commonly accepted set of generic abstract qualities that an Exemplary implementation of a system which says its a "Thing" should assert (ex: with Object Buckets, characteristics like regional redundancy, consistency, lifetime policies, immutable object locking, etc).

The interesting thing there is that now you've got a common base API for, well, common things that any application would need. Open source projects could flourish around saying "Check out NewProjectX, its a Kubernetes-compliant Object Storage provider". The backend doesn't have to be a cloud provider; it could run right on the cluster or on a different machine you own, just like how load balancers can work (see: MetalLB).

Obviously I don't expect AWS to publish an API that divorces the implementation from the spec, but I think we should think about it as a community. And also, not every cloud resource the Big 3 provide would make sense to be "more generic"; for example, having a generic "NoSQL Database" provider is far too implementation specific to account for all the differences between, say, Dynamo and Firestore. So the work AWS is doing on that project is ultimately valuable.