Re: No, it really is "serverless".
As far as I can make out, there isn't actually any great innovation going on here. What we are arguing about is the cost of doing everything in-house versus the cost of using specialists from outside to do stuff, with a sliding scale in between these two.
On one side is the bedroom geek who runs a mail server, web server, his own DNS and pretty much everything off his own power generator with only the link to the internet being outsourced.
On the other side is the person with a rented mobile phone, whose email function is served by GMail, whose website is hosted by an external supplier and so on.
In between these two hypothetical examples are everyone else, trying to find a sweet spot between paying someone else to do everything and doing everything themselves, and all we are arguing about, the sum total of the argument, is where to sit on that sliding scalar between the two extremes.
Serverless, Cloud computing, and all the other marketing terms are just ways of saying "Pay someone else to do it".
The only other factor we have to take into account is networking. The Internet as designed was a net-like network. It had redundancy, and if a few nodes went off-line (such as from someone else dropping a nuke on them) the network coped. The modern Internet is much more efficient than this, with far fewer redundant links, meaning that it doesn't take much to completely knacker connectivity. Thus we also have to take into account the distances between user, cloud servers and target audience, since the longer the distance, the greater the chance of network problems there is.