> Java Applets were available from close to day one right along side JavaScript, and yet...
And yet, what?
But the actual question is: Why? ;-)
> There is the document web and the application web. Both are equally valid.
No, they aren't. The tech was build to support only a lightweight version of the first one. Everything on top is just a great hack, and pure insanity form the technical viewpoint!
> It is absolutely an application platform, as evidence by the fact people use it to deliver applications.
People do a lot of very stupid things. That's not evidence that doing stupid things is a good idea…
> An ever increasing percentage of desktop software is moving to the browser
Nobody is doing that because web-tech is a great application platform. It's actually exactly the other way around: Most people complain about the extremely crappy tech, but still do it for other reasons.
> I'd argue the only reason mobile hasn't followed suite is the non-market forces behind the app store model.
This makes no sense.
It would be much cheaper for the developers to not pay road toll to the app-store owners (-30%!), and they would at the same time remain in control over their own products, if they "delivered" web-apps. But most mobile developers don't do that, for technical reasons: Web apps are just crap and especially on mobile it glaringly shows.
> I can write my software exactly one time and it will run on every platform
You mean, like JVM applications already did 25 years ago?
> Compared to everything else I've worked with, the web as an application delivery platform is great. I write my code, send someone a link, and they are running my app.
What's again the difference here to Java WebStart?
BTW: Installing a JRE is exactly the same one-off effort like installing a web-browser…
---
We lost between 20 and 30 years once again just for political reasons!
Only to arrive at the worst rip-off of some concepts which were already almost "working fine".
I admit that's a recurring pattern. It's always the most terrible tech that will come out on top in the end, for completely insane "reasons". The market just always favors the cheapest shit that can be rolled out with least effort. It was like that for example with things like C or UNIX. Now "worse is better" became a kind of proverb in some circles…
To be of the opinion that the technical best solutions win in the market is imho a sign of not much experience in this world. It was until now the exact opposite in almost all relevant cases, because most of the time the cheapest shit wins on the market.
And yet, what?
But the actual question is: Why? ;-)
> There is the document web and the application web. Both are equally valid.
No, they aren't. The tech was build to support only a lightweight version of the first one. Everything on top is just a great hack, and pure insanity form the technical viewpoint!
> It is absolutely an application platform, as evidence by the fact people use it to deliver applications.
People do a lot of very stupid things. That's not evidence that doing stupid things is a good idea…
> An ever increasing percentage of desktop software is moving to the browser
Nobody is doing that because web-tech is a great application platform. It's actually exactly the other way around: Most people complain about the extremely crappy tech, but still do it for other reasons.
> I'd argue the only reason mobile hasn't followed suite is the non-market forces behind the app store model.
This makes no sense.
It would be much cheaper for the developers to not pay road toll to the app-store owners (-30%!), and they would at the same time remain in control over their own products, if they "delivered" web-apps. But most mobile developers don't do that, for technical reasons: Web apps are just crap and especially on mobile it glaringly shows.
> I can write my software exactly one time and it will run on every platform
You mean, like JVM applications already did 25 years ago?
> Compared to everything else I've worked with, the web as an application delivery platform is great. I write my code, send someone a link, and they are running my app.
What's again the difference here to Java WebStart?
BTW: Installing a JRE is exactly the same one-off effort like installing a web-browser…
---
We lost between 20 and 30 years once again just for political reasons!
Only to arrive at the worst rip-off of some concepts which were already almost "working fine".
I admit that's a recurring pattern. It's always the most terrible tech that will come out on top in the end, for completely insane "reasons". The market just always favors the cheapest shit that can be rolled out with least effort. It was like that for example with things like C or UNIX. Now "worse is better" became a kind of proverb in some circles…
To be of the opinion that the technical best solutions win in the market is imho a sign of not much experience in this world. It was until now the exact opposite in almost all relevant cases, because most of the time the cheapest shit wins on the market.