That xkcd comic's idea would work if people would use web apps in preference to 'native' apps. Moore's law isn't fixing that unless it somehow makes the web int

That xkcd comic's idea would work if people would use web apps in preference to 'native' apps. Moore's law isn't fixing that unless it somehow makes the web into a hugely better platform for apps. As it stands, we are limited to only using these lame DOM-based APIs which have been strained far past their origin in hypertext, and only using Javascript, which has been strained far past its design as a way of merely scripting a browser. These contained some good ideas but they're essentially dead. People want apps. So the original intent is warped to fit that demand, and the result is neither fish nor fowl. It's mystery meat. If the web weren't so crappy, the monopolist would not really have an opportunity. Mobile platforms bring a lot of value because the web is a bad app platform; where you have the choice, keeping HTTP but using other client technologies is the best compromise available. Mobile platform creators had that choice and went with decent languages and more appropriate environments. Where a graphics API can be just a graphics API, and so on for everything else. We can count on Firefox OS and anything like it to fail to thrive for as long as it is Mozilla against the world, defending the awkward status quo by throwing more lame hacks on the pile and awkwardly bolting on new device APIs to its browser. Don't tell me that if I can use a decent language and decent APIs rather than Frankenstein's monster, that I am "screwed by systems incompatibility and fragmentation." The web status quo sucks at a technical level and that is why it is threatened by monopolists. Doubling down on the technical suck isn't going to help. If you want a benevolent monoculture to emerge, you aren't going to get it by doubling down on the status quo and waiting until everyone gives up mobile platforms for ideological reasons, or because a cheap phone uses Javascript.