* Waypoint does not own/manage any infrastructure, Otto attempted to manage the infrastructure. With Waypoint, you have to bring this yourself.
* Waypoint has pluggable components for build/deploy/release. Otto focused in on our tools (mainly because we had to manage the infra, point 1). This makes it much easier to slide into existing ecosystems.
On your question of abstractions: this same argument can be made for Terraform so I think my answer there would be the same but for applications. The idea is that Waypoint can give you a consistent workflow to use different tools, and additional value add features such as deployment URLs, exec, logs, etc. that work across platforms.
You make an excellent point re: abstractions and consistent workflow. But for Terraform, you still need to know the underlying provider; to use Terraform in AWS I have to know what AWS resources I'm looking for, Azure resources in Azure, and so on. But Terraform adds value through abstraction. I don't need to learn the specific AWS/Azure calls; Terraform does it for me. Terraform provides a sane, consistent syntax. And it encourages a declarative workflow that the cloud providers themselves don't do very well/at all.
I don't necessarily see Waypoint providing that same value. You need to know the underlying provider to know what you want to do with it, but the abstraction seems to make it more difficult to use that provider, not easier. But I am a devops professional, not an application developer, so I might just be the wrong market for it.
Either way, congratulations on the release, and I'm excited to see where Waypoint goes from here.