[mapgrep]

Using the word "never" saves you from having to state when the web ceases to be the dominant platform. When do you think this will be?

Something like "the web will never be the dominant platform, except for the past 10 years and the next 10 years" does lack a certain punch, but at least it would be specific :-)

(And I appreciate your taking the time to write your blog post, and don't want to be a jerk, but the definition of never is "at no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever," so maybe you could rephrase to something like "the web cannot continue indefinitely being the dominant platform," which at least acknowledges its current strength.)

[joehewitt]

You're right, it's not the best sentence I've written in my life. Thanks for the feedback.

I was trying to convey that the web is always going to have to fight for its survival, contrary to the common assumption that the web has some magical properties that ensure its long-term prominence.

[epe]

Agreed that the web doesn't have any "magical properties", but it has the "Worse is Better" survival characteristic; or at least it did in its early days. I think the web's continued dominance depends on the extent to which it retains those characteristics.

[MatthewPhillips]

The web has 1 magical property that no other platform can match (today): launching a website and installing a website are the same thing. This makes the web the most frictionless platform we've ever had, and explains it's widespread usage.

Whenever I see these "the web isn't as good as native" discussions I always think back to the late 90s when web-based email took off. How was the user experience on Yahoo mail in 1998? It was full page refreshes on 56k modems. The web doesn't have to maintain pace with native to be relevant, or even to win. It just has to keep being the easy, ubiquitous platform it is today.