To me, these kind of incidents are EXTREMELY bad press for anybody attempting to push "Cloud" adoption as a critical part of the next generation datacenter. The reason for this is that when you place the safety of your data and/or computing resources into the hands of somebody other than yourself (a la "Cloud"), you subsequently give up some control on how those important resources are managed and dealt with.
Incidents like the Microsoft/Danger thing are unavoidable and will happen as the shaky foal of "Cloud" still gets its legs working, which ultimately has a psychological impact on those who are considering it as an option for the next iteration of their datacenter. Why would I want to move all of my stuff to the "Cloud" if this is the kind of thing I can expect, right???
While we could all speculate on the doom and gloom of this incident as a shape of things to come, I prefer to look for a silver lining in the form of carrying multiple clouds and employing some form of federated system to ensure the disparate systems stay in check of each other. This could be as simple as a sync service like MobileMe that allows for as many local copies of data on different machines as well as a copy that is maintained and accessible in Apple's datacenter. Or it could be a more elaborate SOA-oriented solution that acts as a middleman to two different "Cloud" providers' set of APIs to keep things synchronized (um - hey Google - can you hear me?).
In any case, my prediction is that for "Cloud" to be a reality, multiple, distributed iterations of the same data sets is a MUST HAVE. Anybody who doesn't subscribe to this idea is living in a Fool's Paradise...