That's not really outsourcing. That's shifting from capital expenses to operating expenses which has tax and cash flow advantages.
The number of people that think somehow using AWS means you no longer need Ops staff is amazing. In a bad way. How often does "we can't afford our own Ops so we use AWS/Azure/etc" come up as a reason to accept the associated vendor lock in with a given provider?
Many would disagree with you, and run their business as if that is the case.
I'm not saying they are right, I'm saying thats the reality of how a number of decision makers act.
Also, a lot of companies opt to use Heroku first then migrate to basic ol' AWS once that gets far too expensive for them and may hire an operations engineer or two to replace the cost and to help them scale better with capital.
NoOps in a very literal sense being used to describe tech operations is something I never think I'll see anyone take seriously and that can scale.
It's the "replace an in-house team with a broadly equivalent external team" version of outsourcing of recent years that's the bastard.
The "capital (depreciation) vs operating" is only talking about hardware. Having in-house IT employees to install new servers, run new cabling, change tapes for backups, etc, is not a capital expense. Migrating to AWS can shift the FTEs from XYZ company's payroll to Amazon's payroll. Presumably, Amazon's engineers can do IT admin operations in a more cost-efficient manner. That's "outsourcing."
Yes, there would still be in-house employees as "AWS admins" but overall, there should be a net-reduction of FTEs doing commodity-IT grunt work.