[pavlov]

Were one to look at his actual point, one might also go back 30 years and wonder if those silly upstarts at Microsoft with their "pee sees" have a chance against serious mainframes, with the millions of lines of code already written for them.

That comparison would only make sense if mainframes and PCs cost essentially the same, used the same hardware platform, and the mainframe could run all the software as the PC (but not the other way around).

[davidw]

It's not an exact comparison. What I'm pointing out is that disruptive innovations are often like this:

> In terms of functionality, web apps have been a regression from their desktop counterparts.

They're not better - at least not initially. They're good enough.

Will web apps follow that path and displace desktop apps? Maybe, maybe not, but it's not as ridiculous a concept as the rant makes it out to be.

[whughes]

His point is not only that web apps are inferior. His point is that web apps are not good enough. Case in point:

TechCrunch goes on to report: "Don’t worry about those desktop apps you think you need. Office? Meh. You’ve got Zoho and Google Apps. You won’t miss Office."

Ah, yes. Corporate IT workers everywhere have to port decades of esoteric business logic codified into Excel macros to Google Spreadsheets, but the real problem is, what are they going to do after lunch? Have you ever tried to use Google Docs for any serious task? In the words of a true hacker, it's like trying to build a bookcase out of mashed potatoes. The Microsoft Office institution will not easily be overthrown by a bunch of jokers writing JavaScript.

Web apps may be disruptive, but that doesn't make them more useful or more likely to take off.

[davidw]

Maybe he's right, maybe he's not, but calling people who think differently a bunch of morons isn't what makes his case.