3 ms·
The talk was basically flamebait. His main argument for "web is dead" revolved around increasing power of client devices, and he completely ignored that web tec
by mmahemoff 15y ago
The talk was basically flamebait. His main argument for "web is dead" revolved around increasing power of client devices, and he completely ignored that web technologies (aka HTML5) make great use of that computational power.
There are more valid arguments he could have made, e.g. native apps being more flexible or easier to monetize, but increased computational power is orthogonal to the web/native debate, as long as people keep innovating on both platforms. Which they are, furiously.
- bryanlarsen 15y agoNote to those who haven't read the article: the article agrees in a less-inflammatory way with mmahemoff. However I think the article is worth reading because it appears that the talk brought up a new argument about why the "web is dead". It's interesting, but both mmahemoff and the article's author think it's wrong. So do I, but it was an interesting argument.
- mmahemoff 15y agoThe "web is dead" motif of the talk itself, incidentally, is more inflammatory than anything in this thread. - Sent from my web browser