I like the overall framework of trying to identify asymmetries that web was able to exploit in each epoch. Unfortunately, the details are a real mixed bag:
* Why did the web disrupt desktop?
It's not even really worth addressing these, because they're all so weak. None of the actual reasons that web was successful are here. And the ones that are there are nonsense. For example, to suggest that security in the browser was a significant factor in the success of the web on the desktop is utterly detached from reality. Even if average people cared (which they didn't) then they'd be better off trusting software bought at the store than going into the wild west of the internet with the shambles that we called browser security back then.
* Why didn’t the web disrupt mobile?
- the web’s network advantage had evaporated
If anything this argues against the thesis that "make anaerobes do photosynthesis" is insufficient. How would apps become successful by merely matching the existing networked nature of the web? At best this item is filler that adds nothing.
- The iPhone was a completely new thing
Yes, this is actually a good point. New paradigms and new APIs for a new type of device. Makes sense.
- The basis of performance shifted from small binaries to smooth interaction
What? No. This is silly. There's no way that the web prioritizing download size had a significant impact here. And "smooth interaction" has absolutely nothing to do with binary size, so I have no idea why the author is associating them.
- Navigation shifted from keyboard to springboard
Kind of a repeat of the smartphone being a new device, but okay, good additional flavor.
- Log-in disappeared completely
I mean I guess. But if there's any difference, it's more a matter of shared devices not being so much of a thing with phones. Web is perfectly capable of "one-and-done" logins, and many sites do that. And you could easily have a longer session cookie on your mobile site based on the single-user-per-device assumption.
- Discovery shifted from search to app store
Decent point, but only by accident. "Lowering the friction of software install" is nothing, since web has zero friction in that regard. I don't think that typing-free discovery was really that huge of a deal either. But having a large ecosystem of app developers, with ratings and featured content, was enormously influential. This might have been possible with web technologies but obviously nobody did it well enough to gain critical mass.
- Engagement shifted from links to icons
You could have single-page applications on web, with shortcuts on your home screen, send notifications through the browser, etc. You can use icons instead of links on web. Behind the pile of buzzwords, this item is nothing. "Deep, branded experiences" really?
- Business models expanded to IAP, subscriptions, and app purchase.
Yeah I think this is a good point. Having a single payment processor in the play store / app store that knows your payment details did reduce friction.
- Security shifted from sandbox to app review
No, no, no. Not this again. People don't really care about security, and anyway again, app security was still dogshit by the time it had won on mobile, just like browser security was by the time it had won on the desktop. Apps requesting tons of permissions to spy on users were rampant for years and years, even with apps being reviewed by apple/google. And how does this item even constitute a competitive advantage? You can have a browser remember permission to access your location or camera or whatever. There's nothing here.
I feel like this article really dazzled with its introduction tying in business and evolution and setting up the framework for the problem, but then fell to absolute pieces when it came time for the author to actually know anything about technology. Even if there are some good points here, the missteps really undermine their credibility. The analysis of the success of web on desktop is especially lacking, but I don't feel like it's a great analysis on the web vs app section either...