Yeah, I agree with the other commenters that &quot;serverless&quot; is a pretty silly way to describe something that involves lots and lots of servers.<p>If you told me you created a &quot;serverless app&quot; or your app had a &quot;serverless architecture&quot; I would think it either had no off-device communication, or only peer-to-peer communication.<p>That said, I totally understand the reasoning behind calling a backend composed of lots of 3rd-party services &quot;serverless&quot;. You&#x27;re not doing as much of the work of maintaining a traditional server-side app. And if you just have a few Lambda functions that hook into data stores you don&#x27;t have to think about anything that resembles a server in a more traditional sense.<p>The &quot;serverless&quot; term is kind of brilliant from a marketing perspective. It&#x27;s ambiguous, a little confusing, and really just wrong. People will love to point out how stupid it is. And that means they&#x27;ll think about it, and remember it, and tell other people about it. And then they&#x27;ll get used to it and it won&#x27;t seem wrong or stupid - it&#x27;ll just be the way you describe these kinds of systems.