I disagree.<p>This is a backward-looking argument which ignores the unique benefits of the web which made it inevitable that it would evolve into an application platform, regardless of how tortured the results may feel.<p>The web is the first truly cross-platform development environment.  It is not controlled by a single vendor, and anyone implementing a new computing device <i>must</i> support the web (just stop for a second and consider from a historical perspective what a monumental accomplishment that is).  Furthermore, it allows casual access of content and applications without any installation requirement.  It comes with a reasonable security model baked-in, which, while imperfect, gets far more attention than most OS vendor sandboxing schemes.  Last but not least, the web&#x27;s primitive is a simple page, which is far more useful than an app as a primitive—for every app someone installs they probably visit 100 web pages for information that they would never consider installing an app for.<p>I agree that the web is sort of abused as an application platform, the problem is there is no central planning method which will achieve its benefits in more app-oriented fashion.  No company has the power to create a standard for binary app deliverables that will have anywhere near the reach of the web.  And even if one could consolidate the power and mastermind such a thing, I feel like it would run squarely into Gall&#x27;s Law and have twice as many warts as the web.