Yes. In a billing sense, since you're not paying for a provisioned server. You only pay for the time your request is executing and your storage in S3. In the

Yes. In a billing sense, since you're not paying for a provisioned server. You only pay for the time your request is executing and your storage in S3. In the monitoring sense, since Amazon is responsible for monitoring the servers and infrastructure that your application runs on. In a security sense, since Amazon is responsible for installing security updates, using the appropriate SSL cipher suite and sandboxing your code so that a vulnerability turn the server into a part of a botnet. In a scaling sense, since you're not responsible for provisioning more servers should you get the hug of death from having your site posted here. A server is more than just a computer hooked up to the internet. It's a set of responsibilities, limitations and costs that you have to stay on top of. A "serverless" application has far fewer responsibilities and limitations and a completely different cost structure. It's not right for everyone, but it is a fundamentally different way of architecting your application.