[maratd]

> I don't think having more pixel-perfect control or slightly faster JavaScript makes the web any better.

If that's all it was, then you'd be right. You can't do geolocation, local storage, audio/video, canvas/svg/webgl, etc. etc. on old browsers. It's not about making things pretty. It's about creating software that can compete with desktop alternatives.

[eropple]

Unspoken assumption: that competing with desktop alternatives is good or desired.

Personally, I can't think of a single desktop application that I use that is better done in a browser with the possible exception of Google Maps, and I say "possible" because I haven't seen a desktop contender.

I use GMail's web interface solely because I can't stand any of the Mac clients (at work) and Outlook isn't available on Linux (which a couple of my PCs at home run). It is cross-platform, which is a plus; it is painfully ugly and slower than a desktop alternative, which is an overwhelming minus.

I greatly prefer my web browser to be for browsing the web. While I'm all for standards in HTML/CSS/JS, I find the "web browser as your OS!" crap to be disheartening. I like things that work, and for the most part, web applications don't.

[danssig]

I share you views. Making a web app is easier for the developer: just one platform to support, no restrictions on implementation, etc. But a desktop app is nicer for the users (the ones we're supposed to care about, right?). In the very best case a web app would be able to function as good as a desktop app. The best case is usually not achieved.

Imagine if a person at your job said they had just made a new client app for your business users workflow. When you ask how it's implemented the person says that the GUI itself is just a skin that reads everything from the database. The GUI layout, how the buttons behave, all of it is stored in the database and the actual GUI is nothing more than a kind of platform for what's in the database. I've actually seen this done and the team who did it were sacked, their application deprecated. As far as I know it's still running because the team in charge of replacing it still doesn't completely understand it. But this is what web apps are. Model, view, presenter, they're all stored in the same place.

Personally, I prefer having a back end RESTful server with native... shall we say "fit" clients (not fat but not thin either) using it. The browser gets a simplified, default version of the app which has a link to the appropriate native client somewhere visible.

[maratd]

Time = $$$. Universal constant. While your desktop app may be shinier, it takes much more time to create and maintain. This means fewer apps are published and fewer features are added.

Less choices and fewer features translate to a negative for the user.

On top of that, native desktop apps are compiled ... the web is open, with html/css/javascript/etc. and this creates an open environment that encourages free software.

Free is always good for the user.

Anyway, re-arguing this sort of thing is pointless. The desktop is in a death spiral. All this stuff has already been set in stone. It's a question of when, not if.