I have to agree with Casius.
The benefits of cloud computing outweigh the negatives provided your requirements coincide with the architecture as developed. While there may be less wiggle room for customized environments, what classifies as 'custom' is fluctuating every day in favor of the client.
It's basically software as a service, so you get the benefits of a managed infrastructure, without the overhead of owning hardware. Even that concept is outdated since most hosts these days use VM's or LPARs to host dedicated 'nodes'.
As was mentioned, if you have an issue with a specific 'node', it's trivial to re-image a new 'node' with a previously created and saved image thus providing additional infrastructure in an ad hoc fashion.
I fail to see how it is limiting from your perspective as a prospective host. You have access to your images of all the software you employ and all your db exports. The only thing you can't migrate would be application server and db server configs. Which is something you would have to set up elsewhere anyway.
I don't know of service providers that sell cloud-based hosting on an hourly basis; the only fluctuating cost would be tiered bandwidth, which you should be able to slide up to the next level should you find yourself exceeding your package. From a node perspective, if you require more computing resources, you should be able to add/remove infrastructure as required.
So in short, it reduces cost, and provides as much resiliency as you are willing to pay for and as such can span several geographies should the concern be load balancing.
Joebert: Things were all hardwired, system-based computing in the early days. The 'net' was merely a conjoining of disparate and individual systems which made up the whole.
It's more like the shared systems contained in mainframes from many years ago; the distinction is the logical separation across frames instead of locked into the computing resources contained in a single frame.
"It's always a long day, 86,400 won't fit into a short."