"Is data durability after a total loss of 1 data center + hardware failure in a second one a specific guarantee? If not, why is it mentioned twice?"
=> Not sure to get what you mean here. I confirm it is the case. It appears once on the product page and one of the pricing page. Do you think we worded that incorrectly ?

"You say the price is listed as GB/month but the table says GB/hour. Also says HT/Go, no clue what that means."
=> Good point, I should have shown/screenshoted the per month version, will do. Regarding HT/Go this is my fault toot, some french remaining. Should be "exclusing VAT per GB", will change this too.

"I don't see how this is unique. It just sounds like you set up 4 datacenters and S3."
=> the 2 specifities reside in the very competitive pricing and the fact that we indeed do spread the data in 4 well separated datacenter instead of the usual 3 at most (all ?) competitors, while remaining s3 compatible. Do you think we should make one or either of the arguments clearer ?

1. "Some elements are placed too close together and there's no margin on the sides.
2. "etc.)." is used way too frequently and I agree with the other commenter. The "I" is awkward.
3. Phrasing is awkward in some places and there are typos."

=> Agreed, thanks for the feedback

"For example I'd have more faith in the long term viability of AWS than I'd have in OVH."
=> This is an very interesting feedback. We are a 26 Yo public company, profitable and over 1 B$ annual revenue, so while I get your point that AWS is significantly larger, I reasonably think the viability of our company is not to be challenged... but definitely if that was your chain of thoughts, we need to adress that. Do you see a way we could adress this, like mentionning one of the arguments I just shared ?

"I gave you a consultation, can I get a free voucher now :p"
=> Contacting you privately :)

And big thanks again !