I don't want to deploy my code/application to "any" server. In fact, I want to deploy it to the smallest number of servers possible and then change that infrastructure as infrequently as possible. Time spent futzing with infrastructure that's not essential to my customer's experience is time wasted, after all.

And from your copy it seems like you're selling "portability." Once I settle on EC2, though, I'm going to be pretty-well settled on EC2, so portability does very little to benefit me.

Moreover, once I've settled on EC2 I'm quickly going to set up a deployment process. Let's say I'm using Rails + Capistrano for deployment. In a world where I need to switch urgently to another infrastructure service, I know I'll be able to do so with only minimal modifications to my Capistrano script. In any case, necessary changes to the deploy script will be about the same amount of work as necessary changes to the application code and I'm going to have to make those, regardless.

So, overall, the value this provides seems very minimal relative to the likely complexity it would add in other places.

Edit: Reading other comments, this is more like Capistrano-as-a-service it seems? That might be interesting, especially if it comes with process monitoring tools. The page really screams "portability" to me, though.

A tag line like "Deploy your application like the professionals" might do better to get that point across.

However, there's one gaping problem with it.

You seem to have a hosted "weird proprietary yaml language" master.

I don't want the headache of learning a new language, particularly not one with vendor lock in. If it is one of the above, tell me. If it's not, why the hell not?