Do you really understand the problem as you claim? The amount of people who require a decentralized system is irrelevant to the issue. The issue is in what users will do when their trusted system goes down, be it centralized or decentralized.
Say Gmail goes down (forever), will people use another of their emails? Or register for a new one somewhere else? Or start using another medium of communication alltogether?
I assume all of the above will occur to some extent, but if that system was centralized, only the third option would be available. And if that centralized system was so good that it had killed all competition, then suddenly no one would be able to communicate.
It's not about the amount of people who scream for decentralized solutions. It's about the alternatives available in case something does go down, and how easy those alternatives are for users to adopt.
Say Gmail goes down (forever), will people use another of their emails? Or register for a new one somewhere else? Or start using another medium of communication alltogether? I assume all of the above will occur to some extent, but if that system was centralized, only the third option would be available. And if that centralized system was so good that it had killed all competition, then suddenly no one would be able to communicate.
It's not about the amount of people who scream for decentralized solutions. It's about the alternatives available in case something does go down, and how easy those alternatives are for users to adopt.