[kalsk]

This sounds like an odd question, but I honestly need somebody to explain this to me...what is the motivation behind the modern trend to put everything on the web? Is there something you get by running your program from a browser that you don't get from downloading and running an elf or a text file, or is this entire trend based around appealing to users who don't actually know how to use their computers?

[jacobolus]

Some reasons:

1. Web code is portable. The Java dream of “write once, run anywhere” is alive on the web. All you need to run a web app is a device with a browser. No need for a specific CPU architecture or operating system.

2. Web code is accessible. Just click a link and BAM. No need to download anything, no need to install anything, no need to worry about where to put something you might not want later. The web is the lowest friction platform (for users/customers) yet created. Even better, it’s easy to access web data from anywhere in the world on any device: I can read my web email on my grandma’s iPad or on the library’s computer or on a 10-year-old backup laptop, without worrying about whether I’ll have the data I need.

3. Web code is mostly safe. Anything that runs in a webpage is theoretically sandboxed away from harming other webpages or user data stored locally, and web users have come to expect that clicking arbitrary links won’t harm their computers. Untrusted blobs of compiled C code are a completely different story.

4. Web products can very easily be kept up-to-date for all users. This is double-edged for customers, because often website feature changes make later versions more confusing or less effective than earlier versions (cf. most Google product changes from 2008–present). For developers though, it dramatically simplifies support, because every customer can be presumed to be running the latest software version.

The big question is, what do you mean by “everything”? I don’t think everything is being put on the web, or should be. For example, professional “content creation” software is not going to be put on the web anytime in the next few years, because the initial barrier to entry is small in comparison to the required time investment to learn and use the software, and because such applications need hardware access and fine-grained control over compute resources.

[RodgerTheGreat]

If you want someone to just try something, the willingness of users to click a hyperlink is _massively_ higher than the willingness of anyone to download an executable, or run a script from a command line, or run an installer. This has absolutely nothing to do with "knowing how to use a computer".

Personal anecdote: I like building programming environments- sandboxes for playing with unusual languages. My target audience is people who are interested in programming and generally people who are very computer literate.

I spent about 3 years working on a complete development toolchain for a fantasy game console- compilers, profilers, documentation, examples- the works. It was spread around, and has hundreds of stars on github. Problem: you need to have a java compiler on your system to install and work with the tools. Number of people who developed programs using these tools aside from me: close to zero.

More recently, I built a browser-based IDE for another obscure game console. I made a complete toolchain, wrote docs, loads of examples, etc. This time, though, you could share your programs with a hyperlink, and there was no installation required. You could easily remix other people's programs from a public computer. The difference was huge. Dozens of other people wrote hundreds of programs using this system over a matter of months.

If you're making a project you want to share with other people, a web browser removes friction to a degree which cannot be underestimated. Believe me, I _hate_ working with broken, incompatible and terribly designed browser tech, but removing those barriers to entry is invaluable.

[nnethercote]

One way to describe a browser: it is a VM for running untrusted code. That's one thing that truly distinguishes browsers and the web from other platforms, and is a good characteristic to keep in mind.

[simcop2387]

You get a largely cross platform, consistent UI that can easily talk to outside services without being configured. All of these things help make the application work consistently across the many devices that exist now (Computers, smart phones, tablets, mp3 players, refrigerators[1], etc.) so you really can develop once and deploy everywhere. It also does seriously help the users that don't know how to use their refrigerator[2] so they can look up recipies and plan shopping trips.

[1] http://www.digitalafro.com/samsung-smart-fridge-serves-up-re... [2] https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/calendar/Uhfp...

[vasco]

You want to reach as many people as you can, and nowadays people are pretty proficient with using a browser to go to a web page. If you can reduce the number of steps between you and your users, I'd say that's a good thing. Right now that can mean putting everything on the web, in the future, who knows.

[bobajeff]

I imagine the motivation is improving the platform that a whole industry relies upon.

Now, what you get with all this is software that runs on any system a capable browser is present. Like how you can open a video or audio on any system with a capable media player.

[1ris]

It's the current fad. But nothing new. Since the beginning of computing the tides go from thin-clients and fat-clients back and forth. Currently fat-clients are en-vouge.

[sangnoir]

And here I was thinking (mobile) apps were the current fad.

[TeMPOraL]

Are they? The current trend is to have everything done server-side, thus making sure the users get minimum value possible out of software they use.