I am curious why you consider AWS as centralized. Doesn't it offer a service like any other company? If you want to register a website domain, you need to use something like Google Domains or Godaddy. If you need storage, then you need to have a data center which costs a lot and even big companies outsource these services. A company needs internet connection, so they use the services of telecom companies. They also need electricity, so unless they have a fully solar/off grid setup, they will take electricity from the grid. You also mentioned mobile OS like Apple and Google, so does Web3 need to develop their own OS?
If you want a fully decentralized setup, are you saying they need to setup all these things to not be reliant on another company? But even then, won't the Web3 apps still be reliant on those Web3 companies that set these new infrastructures up?
Wow you weren't around when the internet was being built.
So many topics here.
Let me just sum it up.
If another single company can turn off your app it is centralized.
At one point 100 percent of the ETH backbone was on AWS so they could have shut ETH done at any point.
AWS has global datacenters one power company or govenment wants to turn of accees. AWS does not go down.
This is the difference.
A lot of what you have brought up was heavily debated and solved when the internet was being built. Many things written on all those topics.
I am just trying to give you a high level macro view.
I think you missed my point. This statement is something I can't really get behind: "If another single company can turn off your app it is centralized.". Storage isn't the only point of failure/way to turn off an app. I listed several above.
Let's say you created your own storage facility to not be controlled by another company. The government can turn off access to electricity or internet in that facility. If the app is mobile only, Apple and Google can stop the distribution.
To be truly decentralized, are you saying that a small company will create their own global datacenters? That they need to create a mobile OS that can rival Apple and Android in adoption? Not only will that cost a lot of money, I don't think their earnings can pay for all of that.