This sounds like the guff that lots of providers claim about their cloud solutions and that marketeers and analysts claim about the cloud in general.
Anything clever enough to do all of the above will either be super-expensive (either as custom hardware or software vendor licenses) or super-complex to develop and tweak for your own requirements.
Google appear to do something like this already, because they have a number of relatively simple applications that need to scale to the moon and so the problems are commercially worth solving.
Enterprises have the opposite problem. A number of smaller applications of varying criticality and complexity that a one size fits all solution will either be too expensive or too unreliable for.
Similarly, cloud options today come from the all-singing-all-dancing enterprise grade functionality out of the box sort (VMWare) to the lowest reliability commodity hardware with a highly sophisticated API set that lets you build reliability yourself if you have the time and resources to plan here (AWS and others).
Taking your VMWare specified solution and putting it like for like in AWS will save you a boatload of money, but lead to disaster when it doesn't fail over properly. Taking your AWS solution and putting it like for like in VMWare will drive you to bankruptcy. That's why enterprises with smaller apps and less time to spend fiddling trust VMWare and out of the box reliability and pay for it while web scale outfits go to AWS and invest heavily in building software layer resilience.
That was long-winded, but the key lesson is that this SDI article is nonsense. Some of the functionality will be useful for some people in some situations, but costly features that add no value will inevitably be weeded out to leave an array of different options for different types of client.