They literally use the word "backup." I wouldn't _normally_ expect snapshots to function as backups, but once they market them as such, I do. Yeah, sure, it's probably yet another case of a sales team getting over eager and taking over the company, but that's why if you value your ethics _at all_ you keep tabs on WTF the sales are doing.
So you're saying, against your admission of knowing better, that you can be literally swayed that a snapshot is a proper backup in the independent-of-the-original-storage sense, because their documentation equated the two?
The difference between a snapshot being a backup and not being a backup is literally the guarantees made by the provider. If the snapshot feature is documented as a backup, it is DOCUMENTED AS A BACKUP. Unless, of course, I suspect the provider of using the words as a way of confusing me, BUT THAT'S BAD. Like go read yourself a few times, you're literally defending them by claiming it's reasonable to treat them like scammers.
They can document it as anything.
A backup has to be isolated; different physical location, different medium, different provider. What if the technical infrastructure works as advertised, but the company goes into receivership for whatever reason?
Having cloud provider X say they moved the bits from one place to another should not be considered a backup by anyone, regardless of what they advertise.
