The Web Is Dead. Long Live The Internet

The Web Is Dead.
Long Live the Internet | Magazine
SUBSCRIBE RENEW
GIVE A GIFT INTERNATIONAL
Sign In | RSS Feeds AllWired

All Wired
FEATURES START PLAY

How Two Outcast Rappers Most Dangerous Object in Inception, Explained
Built an Insane Clown Empire the Office: GreenSteam Weed
Killer
18.09
The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet

By Chris Anderson and Michael Wolff August 17, 2010 | 9:00 am | Wired September 2010
Subscribe to WIRED
Renew
Give a gift
International Orders
Sources: Cisco estimates based on CAIDA publications, Andrew Odlyzko

Wish List: 100 Best Gifts for Geeks
Two decades after its birth, the World Wide Web is in

decline, as simpler, sleeker services — think apps — are
less about the searching and more about the getting. Chris
Anderson explains how this new paradigm reflects the
inevitable course of capitalism. And Michael Wolff explains
The Web Is Dead? A Debate
why the new breed of media titan is forsaking the Web for
more promising (and profitable) pastures.
How the Web Wins
How Do Native Apps and Web Apps

Compare?
Who’s to You wake up and check Who’s to An amusing
Blame: your email on your

bedside iPad — that’s
Blame: development in the
past year or so — if
Us one app. During breakfast Them you regard post-Soviet
As much as we love the you browse Facebook, Chaos isn’t a business finance as amusing —
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1[9/12/2010 16:18:06]
The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet | Magazine
open, unfettered Web, Twitter, and The New model. A new breed of is that Russian
we’re abandoning it for York Times — three more media moguls is bringing investor Yuri Milner
simpler, sleeker services apps. On the way to the order — and profits — to has, bit by bit,
that just work. office, you listen to a the digital world. amassed one of the
by Chris Anderson podcast on your by Michael Wolff most valuable stakes
smartphone. Another app. on the Internet: He’s
At work, you scroll got 10 percent of
through RSS feeds in a reader and have Skype Facebook. He’s done this by undercutting
and IM conversations. More apps. At the end of traditional American VCs — the Kleiners and
the day, you come home, make dinner while the Sequoias who would, in days past, insist
listening to Pandora, play some games on Xbox on a special status in return for their early
Live, and watch a movie on Netflix’s streaming investment. Milner not only offers better terms
service. than VC firms, he sees the world differently.
The traditional VC has a portfolio of Web sites, Dr. Sudoku Prescribes: Star Battle
You’ve spent the day on the Internet — but not on expecting a few of them to be successes — a RIP Frank W. Lewis: WWII Codecracker, Ingenious
the Web. And you are not alone. good metaphor for the Web itself, broad not Puzzle Designer
deep, dependent on the connections between Decoder Ring: That’s No Moon, It’s a Dreidel!
This is not a trivial distinction. Over the past few sites rather than any one, autonomous Inception, Explained
years, one of the most important shifts in the property. In an entirely different strategic Filter: Smart Wheels for Wee Ones
digital world has been the move from the wide- model, the Russian is concentrating his bet on
open Web to semiclosed platforms that use the a unique power bloc. Not only is Facebook Decode: Puzzles, games and harrowing mental
torments
Internet for transport but not the browser for more than just another Web site, Milner says,
Wired Magazine RSS feed
display. It’s driven primarily by the rise of the but with 500 million users it’s “the largest Web
iPhone model of mobile computing, and it’s a site there has ever been, so large that it is not
world Google can’t crawl, one where HTML a Web site at all.”
doesn’t rule. And it’s the world that consumers
are increasingly choosing, not because they’re According to Compete, a Web analytics 18.12 - December 2010: Tron
rejecting the idea of the Web but because these company, the top 10 Web sites accounted for 18.11 - November 2010: 100% Natural
dedicated platforms often just work better or fit 31 percent of US pageviews in 2001, 40 18.10 - October 2010: Charged!
better into their lives (the screen comes to them, percent in 2006, and about 75 percent in 2010. 18.09 - September 2010: The Web Is Dead
they don’t have to go to the screen). The fact that “Big sucks the traffic out of small,” Milner says.
it’s easier for companies to make money on these “In theory you can have a few very successful
platforms only cements the trend. Producers and individuals controlling hundreds of millions of
consumers agree: The Web is not the culmination people. You can become big fast, and that
of the digital revolution. favors the domination of strong people.” San Jose Coupons
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Like doing San Jose
at 90% off! - www.Groupon.com/San-Jose
A decade ago, the ascent of the Web browser as Milner sounds more like a traditional media
the center of the computing world appeared mogul than a Web entrepreneur. But that’s LEGO® Virtual Road Trip
inevitable. It seemed just a matter of time before exactly the point. If we’re moving away from Explore the Open Road with LEGO®. Start Your
the Web replaced PC application software and the open Web, it’s at least in part because of LEGO® Road Trip Today! -
www.BuildTogether.com/LEGO
reduced operating systems to a “poorly debugged the rising dominance of businesspeople more
set of device drivers,” as Netscape cofounder inclined to think in the all-or-nothing terms of Ally Bank® Official Site
Marc Andreessen famously said. First Java, then traditional media than in the come-one-come- Open a Checking & Savings Account. Free Debit Card,
Flash, then Ajax, then HTML5 — increasingly all collectivist utopianism of the Web. This is Checks & More. - www.Ally.com
interactive online code — promised to put all apps not just natural maturation but in many ways
Nexus S: Official Site
in the cloud and replace the desktop with the the result of a competing idea — one that 16 GB Memory. Slick 4" Screen. Pure Google. Pure
webtop. Open, free, and out of control. rejects the Web’s ethic, technology, and Innovation. - www.google.com/nexus
business models. The control the Web took
Ads by Google
But there has always been an alternative path, from the vertically integrated, top-down media
one that saw the Web as a worthy tool but not the world can, with a little rethinking of the nature
whole toolkit. In 1997, Wired published a now- and the use of the Internet, be taken back.
infamous “Push!” cover story, which suggested
that it was time to “kiss your browser goodbye.” This development — a familiar historical
The argument then was that “push” technologies march, both feudal and corporate, in which the
such as PointCast and Microsoft’s Active Desktop less powerful are sapped of their reason for
would create a “radical future of media beyond the being by the better resourced, organized, and
Web.” efficient — is perhaps the rudest shock
possible to the leveled, porous, low-barrier-to-
“Sure, we’ll always have Web pages. We still entry ethos of the Internet Age. After all, this is
have postcards and telegrams, don’t we? But the a battle that seemed fought and won — not
center of interactive media — increasingly, the just toppling newspapers and music labels but
center of gravity of all media — is moving to a also AOL and Prodigy and anyone who built a
post-HTML environment,” we promised nearly a business on the idea that a curated experience
decade and half ago. The examples of the time would beat out the flexibility and freedom of
were a bit silly — a “3-D furry-muckers VR space” the Web.
and “headlines sent to a pager” — but the point

was altogether prescient: a glimpse of the Subscription: Subscribe | Give a Gift | Renew |
machine-to-machine future that would be less International | Questions | Change Address
about browsing and more about getting. Quick Links: Contact Us | Sign In/Register |
Newsletter | RSS Feeds | Tech Jobs | Wired Mobile |
FAQ | Site Map
Search Magazine
Illustration: Dirk Fowler
As it happened, PointCast, a glorified screensaver The truth is that the Web has always had two
that could inadvertently bring your corporate faces. On the one hand, the Internet has
network to its knees, quickly imploded, taking meant the breakdown of incumbent businesses
push with it. But just as Web 2.0 is simply Web and traditional power structures. On the other,
1.0 that works, the idea has come around again. it’s been a constant power struggle, with many
Those push concepts have now reappeared as companies banking their strategy on controlling
APIs, apps, and the smartphone. And this time we all or large chunks of the TCP/IP-fueled
have Apple and the iPhone/iPad juggernaut universe. Netscape tried to own the
leading the way, with tens of millions of homepage; Amazon.com tried to dominate
consumers already voting with their wallets for an retail; Yahoo, the navigation of the Web.
app-led experience. This post-Web future now
looks a lot more convincing. Indeed, it’s already Google was the endpoint of this process: It
here. may represent open systems and leveled
architecture, but with superb irony and
The Web is, after all, just one of many strategic brilliance it came to almost completely
applications that exist on the Internet, which uses control that openness. It’s difficult to imagine
the IP and TCP protocols to move packets another industry so thoroughly subservient to
around. This architecture — not the specific one player. In the Google model, there is one
applications built on top of it — is the revolution. distributor of movies, which also owns all the
Today the content you see in your browser — theaters. Google, by managing both traffic and
largely HTML data delivered via the http protocol sales (advertising), created a condition in which
on port 80 — accounts for less than a quarter of it was impossible for anyone else doing
the traffic on the Internet … and it’s shrinking. business in the traditional Web to be bigger
The applications that account for more of the than or even competitive with Google. It was
Internet’s traffic include peer-to-peer file transfers, the imperial master over the world’s most
email, company VPNs, the machine-to-machine distributed systems. A kind of Rome.
communications of APIs, Skype calls, World of
Warcraft and other online games, Xbox Live, In an analysis that sees the Web, in the
iTunes, voice-over-IP phones, iChat, and Netflix description of Interactive Advertising Bureau
movie streaming. Many of the newer Net president Randall Rothenberg, as driven by “a
applications are closed, often proprietary, bunch of megalomaniacs who want to own the
networks. entirety of the world,” it is perhaps inevitable
that some of those megalomaniacs began to
And the shift is only accelerating. Within five see replicating Google’s achievement as their
years, Morgan Stanley projects, the number of fundamental business challenge. And because
users accessing the Net from mobile devices will Google so dominated the Web, that meant
surpass the number who access it from PCs. building an alternative to the Web.
Because the screens are smaller, such mobile
traffic tends to be driven by specialty software,
mostly apps, designed for a single purpose. For
the sake of the optimized experience on mobile
devices, users forgo the general-purpose
browser. They use the Net, but not the Web. Fast
beats flexible.
This was all inevitable. It is the cycle of

capitalism. The story of industrial revolutions,
after all, is a story of battles over control. A
technology is invented, it spreads, a thousand
flowers bloom, and then someone finds a way to Enter Facebook. The site began as a free but
own it, locking out others. It happens every time. closed system. It required not just registration
but an acceptable email address (from a

Take railroads. Uniform and open gauge university, or later, from any school). Google
standards helped the industry boom and created was forbidden to search through its servers. By
an explosion of competitors — in 1920, there the time it opened to the general public in
were 186 major railroads in the US. But 2006, its clublike, ritualistic, highly regulated
eventually the strongest of them rolled up the foundation was already in place. Its very
others, and today there are just seven — a attraction was that it was a closed system.
regulated oligopoly. Or telephones. The invention Indeed, Facebook’s organization of information
of the switchboard was another open standard and relationships became, in a remarkably
that allowed networks to interconnect. After short period of time, a redoubt from the Web —
telephone patents held by AT&T’s parent a simpler, more habit-forming place. The
company expired in 1894, more than 6,000 company invited developers to create games
independent phone companies sprouted up. But and applications specifically for use on
by 1939, AT&T controlled nearly all of the US’s Facebook, turning the site into a full-fledged
long-distance lines and some four-fifths of its platform. And then, at some critical-mass point,
telephones. Or electricity. In the early 1900s, after not just in terms of registration numbers but of
the standardization to alternating current sheer time spent, of habituation and loyalty,
distribution, hundreds of small electric utilities Facebook became a parallel world to the Web,
were consolidated into huge holding companies. an experience that was vastly different and
By the late 1920s, the 16 largest of those arguably more fulfilling and compelling and that
commanded more than 75 percent of the consumed the time previously spent idly
electricity generated in the US. drifting from site to site. Even more to the
point, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg
Indeed, there has hardly ever been a fortune possessed a clear vision of empire: one in
created without a monopoly of some sort, or at which the developers who built applications on
least an oligopoly. This is the natural path of top of the platform that his company owned
industrialization: invention, propagation, adoption, and controlled would always be subservient to
control. the platform itself. It was, all of a sudden, not
just a radical displacement but also an
Now it’s the Web’s turn to face the pressure for extraordinary concentration of power. The Web
profits and the walled gardens that bring them. of countless entrepreneurs was being
Openness is a wonderful thing in the overshadowed by the single entrepreneur-
nonmonetary economy of peer production. But mogul-visionary model, a ruthless paragon of
eventually our tolerance for the delirious chaos of everything the Web was not: rigid standards,
infinite competition finds its limits. Much as we high design, centralized control.
love freedom and choice, we also love things that
just work, reliably and seamlessly. And if we have Striving megalomaniacs like Zuckerberg
to pay for what we love, well, that increasingly weren’t the only ones eager to topple Google’s
seems OK. Have you looked at your cell phone or model of the open Web. Content companies,
cable bill lately? which depend on advertising to fund the
creation and promulgation of their wares,
As Jonathan L. Zittrain puts it in The Future of the appeared to be losing faith in their ability to do
Internet — And How to Stop It, “It is a mistake to so online. The Web was built by engineers, not
think of the Web browser as the apex of the PC’s editors. So nobody paid much attention to the
evolution.” Today the Internet hosts countless fact that HTML-constructed Web sites — the
closed gardens; in a sense, the Web is an most advanced form of online media and
exception, not the rule. design — turned out to be a pretty piss-poor
advertising medium.
For quite a while this was masked by the

growth of the audience share, followed by an
ever-growing ad-dollar share, until, about two
years ago, things started to slow down. The
audience continued to grow at a ferocious rate
— about 35 percent of all our media time is
now spent on the Web — but ad dollars
weren’t keeping pace. Online ads had risen to
some 14 percent of consumer advertising
spending but had begun to level off. (In
contrast, TV — which also accounts for 35
percent of our media time, gets nearly 40
percent of ad dollars.)
Monopolies are actually even more likely in highly What’s more, there was the additionally
networked markets like the online world. The dark sobering and confounding fact that an online
side of network effects is that rich nodes get consumer continued to be worth significantly
richer. Metcalfe’s law, which states that the value less than an offline one. For a while, this was
of a network increases in proportion to the square seen as inevitable right-sizing: Because
of connections, creates winner-take-all markets, everything online could be tracked, advertisers
where the gap between the number one and no longer had to pay to reach readers who
number two players is typically large and growing. never saw their ads. You paid for what you
got.
Unfortunately, what you got wasn’t much.

Consumers weren’t motivated by display ads,
as evidenced by the share of the online
audience that bothered to click on them.
(According to a 2009 comScore study, only 16
percent of users ever click on an ad, and 8
percent of users accounted for 85 percent of
all clicks.) The Web might generate some
clicks here and there, but you had to
So what took so long? Why wasn’t the Web aggregate millions and millions of them to
colonized by monopolists a decade ago? Because make any money (which is what Google, and
it was in its adolescence then, still innovating basically nobody else, was able to do). And the
quickly with a fresh and growing population of Web almost perversely discouraged the kind of
users always looking for something new. systematized, coordinated, focused attention
Network-driven domination was short-lived. upon which brands are built — the prime, or at
Friendster got huge while social networking was least most lucrative, function of media.
in its infancy, and fickle consumers were still keen
to experiment with the next new thing. They found What’s more, this medium rendered powerless
another shiny service and moved on, just as they the marketers and agencies that might have
had abandoned SixDegrees.com before it. In the been able to turn this chaotic mess into an
expanding universe of the early Web, AOL’s effective selling tool — the same marketers
walled garden couldn’t compete with what was and professional salespeople who created the
outside the walls, and so the walls fell. formats (the variety shows, the 30- second
spots, the soap operas) that worked so well in
But the Web is now 18 years old. It has reached television and radio. Advertising powerhouse
adulthood. An entire generation has grown up in WPP, for instance, with its colossal network of
front of a browser. The exploration of a new world marketing firms — the same firms that had
has turned into business as usual. We get the shaped traditional media by matching content
Web. It’s part of our life. And we just want to use with ads that moved the nation — may still
the services that make our life better. Our represent a large share of Google’s revenue,
appetite for discovery slows as our familiarity with but it pales next to the greater population of
the status quo grows. individual sellers that use Google’s AdWords
and AdSense programs.
Blame human nature. As much as we
intellectually appreciate openness, at the end of
the day we favor the easiest path. We’ll pay for
convenience and reliability, which is why iTunes
can sell songs for 99 cents despite the fact that
they are out there, somewhere, in some form, for
free. When you are young, you have more time
than money, and LimeWire is worth the hassle.
As you get older, you have more money than
time. The iTunes toll is a small price to pay for
the simplicity of just getting what you want. The
more Facebook becomes part of your life, the
more locked in you become. Artificial scarcity is
the natural goal of the profit-seeking.
There is an analogy to the current Web in the first One result of the relative lack of influence of
era of the Internet. In the 1990s, as it became professional salespeople and hucksters — the
clear that digital networks were the future, there democratization of marketing, if you will — is
were two warring camps. One was the traditional that advertising on the Web has not developed
telcos, on whose wires these feral bits of the in the subtle and crafty and controlling ways it
young Internet were being sent. The telcos did in other mediums. The ineffectual banner
argued that the messy protocols of TCP/IP — all ad, created (indeed by the founders of this
this unpredictable routing and those lost packets magazine) in 1994 — and never much liked by
requiring resending — were a cry for help. What anyone in the marketing world — still remains
consumers wanted were “intelligent” networks the foundation of display advertising on the
that could (for a price) find the right path and Web.
provision the right bandwidth so that
transmissions would flow uninterrupted. Only the And then there’s the audience.
owners of the networks could put the intelligence
in place at the right spots, and thus the Internet At some never-quite-admitted level, the Web
would become a value-added service provided by audience, however measurable, is
the AT&Ts of the world, much like ISDN before it. nevertheless a fraud. Nearly 60 percent of
The rallying cry was “quality of service” (QoS). people find Web sites from search engines,
Only telcos could offer it, and as soon as much of which may be driven by SEO, or
consumers demanded it, the telcos would win. “search engine optimization” — a new-
economy acronym that refers to gaming
The opposing camp argued for “dumb” networks. Google’s algorithm to land top results for hot
Rather than cede control to the telcos to manage search terms. In other words, many of these
the path that bits took, argued its proponents, just people have been essentially corralled into
treat the networks as dumb pipes and let TCP/IP clicking a random link and may have no idea
figure out the routing. So what if you have to why they are visiting a particular site — or,
resend a few times, or the latency is all over the indeed, what site they are visiting. They are
place. Just keep building more capacity — the exact opposite of a loyal audience, the kind
“overprovision bandwidth” — and it will be Good that you might expect, over time, to inculcate
Enough. with your message.
On the underlying Internet itself, Good Enough Web audiences have grown ever larger even
has won. We stare at the spinning buffering disks as the quality of those audiences has
on our YouTube videos rather than accept the shriveled, leading advertisers to pay less and
Faustian bargain of some Comcast/Google QoS less to reach them. That, in turn, has meant
bandwidth deal that we would invariably end up the rise of junk-shop content providers — like
paying more for. Aside from some corporate Demand Media — which have determined that
networks, dumb pipes are what the world wants the only way to make money online is to spend
from telcos. The innovation advantages of an even less on content than advertisers are
open marketplace outweigh the limited willing to pay to advertise against it. This
performance advantages of a closed system. further cheapens online content, makes visitors
even less valuable, and continues to diminish
But the Web is a different matter. The the credibility of the medium.
marketplace has spoken: When it comes to the
applications that run on top of the Net, people are Even in the face of this downward spiral, the
starting to choose quality of service. We want despairing have hoped. But then came the
TweetDeck to organize our Twitter feeds because recession, and the panic button got pushed.
it’s more convenient than the Twitter Web page. Finally, after years of experimentation, content
The Google Maps mobile app on our phone companies came to a disturbing conclusion:
works better in the car than the Google Maps The Web did not work. It would never bring in
Web site on our laptop. And we’d rather lean back the bucks. And so they began looking for a
to read books with our Kindle or iPad app than new model, one that leveraged the power of
lean forward to peer at our desktop browser. the Internet without the value-destroying side
effects of the Web. And they found Steve Jobs,
At the application layer, the open Internet has who — rumor had it — was working on a new
always been a fiction. It was only because we tablet device.
confused the Web with the Net that we didn’t see
it. The rise of machine-to-machine Now, on the technology side, what the Web
communications — iPhone apps talking to Twitter has lacked in its determination to turn itself into
APIs — is all about control. Every API comes with a full-fledged media format is anybody who
terms of service, and Twitter, Amazon.com, knew anything about media. Likewise, on the
Google, or any other company can control the media side, there wasn’t anybody who knew
use as they will. We are choosing a new form of anything about technology. This has been a
QoS: custom applications that just work, thanks to fundamental and aching disconnect: There was
cached content and local code. Every time you no sublime integration of content and systems,
pick an iPhone app instead of a Web site, you are of experience and functionality — no clever,
voting with your finger: A better experience is subtle, Machiavellian overarching design able
worth paying for, either in cash or in implicit to create that codependent relationship
acceptance of a non-Web standard. between audience, producer, and marketer.
In the media world, this has taken the form of a Jobs perfectly fills that void. Other
shift from ad-supported free content to freemium technologists have steered clear of actual
— free samples as marketing for paid services — media businesses, seeing themselves as
with an emphasis on the “premium” part. On the renters of systems and third-party facilitators,
Web, average CPMs (the price of ads per often deeply wary of any involvement with
thousand impressions) in key content categories content. (See, for instance, Google CEO Eric
such as news are falling, not rising, because Schmidt’s insistence that his company is not in
user-generated pages are flooding Facebook and the content business.) Jobs, on the other hand,
other sites. The assumption had been that once built two of the most successful media
the market matured, big companies would be able businesses of the past generation: iTunes, a
to reverse the hollowing-out trend of analog content distributor, and Pixar, a movie studio.
dollars turning into digital pennies. Sadly that Then, in 2006, with the sale of Pixar to Disney,
hasn’t been the case for most on the Web, and Jobs becomes the biggest individual
by the looks of it there’s no light at the end of that shareholder in one of the world’s biggest
tunnel. Thus the shift to the app model on rich traditional media conglomerates — indeed
media platforms like the iPad, where limited free much of Jobs’ personal wealth lies in his
content drives subscription revenue (check out traditional media holdings.
Wired’s cool new iPad app!).
In fact, Jobs had, through iTunes, aligned
The Web won’t take the sequestering of its himself with traditional media in a way that
commercial space easily. The defenders of the Google has always resisted. In Google’s open
unfettered Web have their hopes set on HTML5 and distributed model, almost anybody can
— the latest version of Web-building code that advertise on nearly any site and Google gets a
offers applike flexibility — as an open way to cut — its interests are with the mob. Apple, on
satisfy the desire for quality of service. If a the other hand, gets a cut any time anybody
standard Web browser can act like an app, buys a movie or song — its interests are
offering the sort of clean interface and seamless aligned with the traditional content providers.
interactivity that iPad users want, perhaps users (This is, of course, a complicated alignment,
will resist the trend to the paid, closed, and because in each deal, Apple has quickly come
proprietary. But the business forces lining up to dominate the relationship.)
behind closed platforms are big and getting
bigger. This is seen by many as a battle for the So it’s not shocking that Jobs’ iPad-enabled
soul of the digital frontier. vision of media’s future looks more like media’s
past. In this scenario, Jobs is a mogul straight
Zittrain argues that the demise of the all- out of the studio system. While Google may
encompassing, wide-open Web is a dangerous have controlled traffic and sales, Apple
thing, a loss of open standards and services that controls the content itself. Indeed, it retains
are “generative” — that allow people to find new absolute approval rights over all third-party
uses for them. “The prospect of tethered applications. Apple controls the look and feel
appliances and software as service,” he warns, and experience. And, what’s more, it controls
“permits major regulatory intrusions to be both the content-delivery system (iTunes) and
implemented as minor technical adjustments to the devices (iPods, iPhones, and iPads)
code or requests to service providers.” through which that content is consumed.
But what is actually emerging is not quite the Since the dawn of the commercial Web,
bleak future of the Internet that Zittrain technology has eclipsed content. The new
envisioned. It is only the future of the commercial business model is to try to let the content —
content side of the digital economy. Ecommerce the product, as it were — eclipse the
continues to thrive on the Web, and no company technology. Jobs and Zuckerberg are trying to
is going to shut its Web site as an information do this like old-media moguls, fine-tuning all
resource. More important, the great virtue of aspects of their product, providing a more
today’s Web is that so much of it is designed, directed, and polished experience.
noncommercial. The wide-open Web of peer The rising breed of exciting Internet services —
production, the so-called generative Web where like Spotify, the hotly anticipated streaming
everyone is free to create what they want, music service; and Netflix, which lets users
continues to thrive, driven by the nonmonetary stream movies directly to their computer
incentives of expression, attention, reputation, screens, Blu-ray players, or Xbox 360s — also
and the like. But the notion of the Web as the pull us back from the Web. We are returning to
ultimate marketplace for digital delivery is now in a world that already exists — one in which we
doubt. chase the transformative effects of music and
film instead of our brief (relatively speaking)
The Internet is the real revolution, as important as flirtation with the transformative effects of the
electricity; what we do with it is still evolving. As it Web.
moved from your desktop to your pocket, the
nature of the Net changed. The delirious chaos of After a long trip, we may be coming home.
the open Web was an adolescent phase
subsidized by industrial giants groping their way Michael Wolff (michael@burnrate.com) is a
in a new world. Now they’re doing what new contributing editor for Wired. He is also a
industrialists do best — finding choke points. And columnist for Vanity Fair and the founder of
by the looks of it, we’re loving it. Newser, a news-aggregation site.
Editor in chief Chris Anderson

(canderson@wired.com) wrote about the new
industrial revolution in issue 18.02.
An earlier version of the chart at the beginning of this article incorrectly listed the time span from 1995 to 2005. The correct time span is 1990 to
2010. The correct version appears in the print magazine.
11k retweet
Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 | Full Page | Next
Tags: apps, capitalism, html5, internet, open web, Push, Web 2.0, www
Post Comment | Permalink
Also on Wired.com
Academics for Mere Politicians
Video: Blackberry Playbook Hands-On Demo
1st Day of Geekmas
IFan Case Charges iPhone with Wind Power
New Sesame Street Games Chase Some Clouds Away
Nintendo Products to Consider for the Holidays
Related Topics: Amazon.com Inc., AOL LLC, Apple Inc., Apple iPad , Apple iPhone , Apple iTunes
13 Yahoo! Buzz Stumble ShareThis
PREVIOUS NEXT
Author Simon Singh Puts Up a Fight in the The Web Is Dead? A Debate
War on Science
Comments (162)
Sign in to comment Not a member?
You can now use your email address to login. If you're not yet registered with
Wired.com, join now so you can share
your thoughts and opinions.
Email: Password:
It's fast and free.

Remember me
Forgot your sign in information?
Posted by: idiganalytics | 09/13/10 | 10:50 am |
“The “WorldWideWeb” is a “web” of “hypertext documents” viewed by “browsers” using a client–server

architecture.” (ref 1990, Berners-Lee, Cailliau – http://www.w3.org/Proposal.html). As such, Facebook,
Youtube, Google et al *are* the Web. None would work without hypertext transfer protocol (http)!
The article is misleading, and the graphic grossly so – comparing apples to oranges: FTP, eMail,
newsgroups? None of those employ http!!
None of us can get to anything on the internet without addressable points (URIs, URLs) and a way to
view content, whether words or video (HTML). “The Web is Dead” is a sensationalist headline that I find
deeply offensive – insulting to my intelligence and that of the millions of others who do digital deeds.
The article did offer interesting discourse – but at what price? Ignoble sir, retract! Unless you do, we will
all believe you really are the idiot this article makes you seem.
Posted by: samuelrealtalk | 09/15/10 | 11:15 am |
Kinda far out there if you ask me!
Posted by: ReaM | 09/19/10 | 7:30 pm |
Well, let’s not forget, that VIDEO takes a LOT more traffic compared to web. Which means, the traffic is
higher for the same time a user spends on web. In the end it means, the 51% of traffic used by video is
FAR LESS user activities than the 23% of web browsing.
Peer to Peer means video games?
Posted by: mdobbs | 09/21/10 | 4:06 pm |
Great read and food for thought. Take it with a grain of salt yes!
- per JPP’s comment: “Interesting article – however it’s based on a flawed premise. Traffic volume does
not equal usage. For example this page, compressed, is about 60KB a single youtube video is 100
times that but takes the same amount of time to digest. If you want to understand usage you need to
look at how much time a users spend on each activity not on how many bytes gets sent.”h
Regardless, gets the brain moving about what opportunities are coming beyond HTTP/web.
Posted by: eforblue | 09/25/10 | 5:00 pm |

“The web is dead!” I use that sentence in my cover letter when I am looking for a new job lately….
Posted by: unplu | 09/27/10 | 7:31 pm |

I couldn’t find a direct link for the sources behind your graph by following your reference to ‘Cisco
estimates based on CAIDA publications, Andrew Odlyzko’. Could you provide a direct link to the
numbers? Many thanks.
Posted by: Hank | 09/28/10 | 5:46 pm |
This article is a lengthy exploration of an improperly framed argument. The web is dead because more
bits are moved via BitTorrent and Skype Calls? Judging the business significance of the web by
volume of bits moved is like measuring the importance of a new technology by its physical weight. It’s
not how many bits move through each protocol that matters it’s which bits. You cite Skype, Pandora
and Netflix as examples of this “post-web” trend, but each one of these companies has a website which
is used for some of the company’s most important features (like payment). The app/web difference is
only a means to an end. You are confusing a short-term shift in delivery mechanism with a long-term
shift in business model. How un-Wired of you.
Posted by: tomreavey | 10/1/10 | 9:28 am |
This article reads like an Apple advertisement (typical Wired to ass kiss Apple). As others mentioned
apps are just tools to access web content. This article was by far the worst, most disillusioned I’ve read
from Wired.
Posted by: swagval | 10/22/10 | 8:12 pm |
Weak. Really weak logic. If apps and their monetization were everything, we’d still be using desktop
software to do everything. Companies like Peoplesoft would have never survived.
The only reason apps are popular is because, like the desktop Web browser of 1998, the interface
controls suck and are completely limiting. Once that improves, there’s going to be no idiotic sense to
making a custom application for each mobile platform for each Web site a user visits. That’s just
ridiculous, and we’re in a ridiculous transitional moment in time because of it.
You confused the means for the ends here.
Posted by: riyadsoft | 10/23/10 | 4:13 am |
good
Posted by: MarcOliver | 10/28/10 | 5:37 pm |
When the web is dead – when did the website died?
Posted by: olinhyde | 11/6/10 | 10:30 pm |
Brilliant assessment. I think the article failed to address the larger issues of how “Big Data” and 15+
years of noise pollution from SEO have created evolutionary pressure for a semantic Web 3.0 to
evolve.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Corrections | Sitemap | FAQ | Contact Us | Wired Staff | Advertising | Press Center | Subscription Services | Newsletter | RSS Feeds
Condé Nast Web Sites:
Webmonkey | Reddit | ArsTechnica | Details | Golf Digest | GQ | New Yorker
Subscribe
Subscribe to a magazine:
to a magazine: Condé
Condé NastNast web
web sites: sites:
Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (Revised 4/1/2009) and Privacy Policy (Revised 4/1/2009).
Wired.com © 2010 Condé Nast Digital. All rights reserved.
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast Digital.
The Web Is Dead? A Debate | Magazine
SUBSCRIBE RENEW
GIVE A GIFT INTERNATIONAL

All Wired
FEATURES START PLAY

How Two Outcast Rappers Most Dangerous Object in Inception, Explained
Built an Insane Clown Empire the Office: GreenSteam Weed
Killer
18.09
The Web Is Dead? A Debate

By Chris Anderson August 17, 2010 | 9:00 am | Wired September 2010
Subscribe to WIRED
Renew
Give a gift
Illustration: Charles Guan Wish List: 100 Best Gifts for Geeks
Wired asked Tim O’Reilly and John Battelle, the creators of the Web
2.0 conferences, to debate the issues raised in our Web RIP cover
package. Over a number of days, Tim and John traded emails with
Wired magazine editor in chief Chris Anderson, who wrote one half
The Web Is Dead. Long Live the of “The Web Is Dead.” Surprisingly, Tim agreed that the Web is the
Internet “adolescent” phase of the Internet’s evolution and that we are
How the Web Wins seeing a shift toward a more closed phase in the networked age’s
cycles. John, however, was having none of it…
How Do Native Apps and Web Apps
Compare?
Round One:
O’Reilly to Anderson:
It’s the back end that matters.
While there’s no question that both Facebook and the mobile app ecosystem
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip_debate/[9/12/2010 16:19:36]
provide clear challenges to “the web,” the idea that the browser front end was
ever the key to the web’s dominance is so, well, 1995, from the days when
Netscape thought that the “webtop” would displace the desktop. But the competitive
action has always been on the internet as transport, with data-driven services as the Dr. Sudoku Prescribes: Star Battle
back end. RIP Frank W. Lewis: WWII Codecracker, Ingenious
Puzzle Designer
Back when I put on my first conference, the Perl Conference, in 1997, I was already Decoder Ring: That’s No Moon, It’s a Dreidel!
talking about how the internet was becoming a vast repository of programmable Inception, Explained
services, that screen scraping and overloaded URLs were pointing towards a future
Filter: Smart Wheels for Wee Ones
internet operating system. And when I put on my “Building the Internet Operating
System” conference in 2002, I was already focusing on how Peer-to-Peer Decode: Puzzles, games and harrowing mental
distribution, distributed computation, and web services were pointing forward to torments
something much bigger than we’d seen before.

Wired Magazine RSS feed
And in 2004, when we rechristened this whole thing “Web 2.0,” I was very clear that
“Data is the Intel Inside,” that what we were talking about was an internet operating
system, whose subsystems were data systems like identity, location, payment,
advertising, media repositories, and product ids. 18.12 - December 2010: Tron
18.11 - November 2010: 100% Natural
And sure enough, “web sites” like Google, but also now Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, 18.10 - October 2010: Charged!
PayPal, LinkedIn and many others, have been quietly building those enormous data 18.09 - September 2010: The Web Is Dead
back ends that drive their web sites, but more importantly, also drive a vast array of
web services. Google maps in the browser is still Google maps, with all the
intelligence, all the deep data layers, that make it a success on either front-end.
What the mobile ecosystems of today have done is to unmask the reality that it’s The New Google Nexus S
the back end that matters. Equipped with Gingerbread. Because Faster is Always
Better. - www.google.com/nexus
The key concept of Web 2.0 was that in an era of networked applications, LEGO® Virtual Road Trip
network effects matter, the rich get richer, and there are enormous Explore the Open Road with LEGO®. Start Your
concentrations of power inevitable in an era when applications literally get better LEGO® Road Trip Today! -
www.BuildTogether.com/LEGO
the more people use them, not just because there are more people using the same
application (which is the kind of network effect we saw in the era of Microsoft Word Convenient Online Banking
and Excel) but because the applications literally get smarter as they gather more Bank of America®. Check Balances. Transfer Money.
data from their users. (As Google chief scientist Peter Norvig once said about Set Up Alerts. - www.BankOfAmerica.com/Solutions
speech recognition, “We don’t have better algorithms than anyone else, we just
Prepaid Visa Credit Cards
have more data.”) No Credit Check. No Interest Fees. 100% Approval.
Apply Today! - www.RushCard.com
So yes, the front end doesn’t matter in quite the way we thought it would. Perhaps a
Ads by Google
good analogy is to think of the web as the boot loader for the Internet OS – it’s how
we got the data up there into the cloud, and got the process of self-reinforcing data
collection started. It’s also how we got the business models going that turned all that
data into cash.
One other key concept is that it’s the data that provides what John Battelle and I are
Subscription: Subscribe | Give a Gift | Renew |
calling “points of control” in the future Internet operating system. (See Theme: Points International | Questions | Change Address
of Control) It’s not APIs on the phone, it’s not Objective C or the iPhone OS, it’s still
Quick Links: Contact Us | Sign In/Register |
the data back end that gives even Apple its leverage. The reason why iPhone and Newsletter | RSS Feeds | Tech Jobs | Wired Mobile |
Android are beating other phones is because they have more apps. It’s really FAQ | Site Map
important to see the “app store” (as in the iPhone App Store and the Android
Market) as examples of these kinds of massive network-accessible data collections.
It’s easy to focus on the apps themselves, down on the phone, and to forget just Search Magazine
how many of the key apps are the same networked apps that we see on the web,
just with a different front end. The app store itself has more in common with Google
Maps than it has with, say, Pocket Pond.
Looking forward to continuing this discussion.
Anderson to O’Reilly:
Open is better, but…
I agree with all of this, but am surprised that you’re not more worried about the
consequences of the shift from the “front end” of browser-centric computing to the
“back end” of apps, closed networks and proprietary connections between massive
data servers and specialized clients.
Why? Because the first defaults to open and the second defaults to closed.
You’re looking at data architectures, and you rightly observe that deep data on
servers allows clients to be smaller and lighter, as the app explosion is proving. You
call these valuable data sets “points of control” in the emerging Internet Operating
System (notably not Web Operating System). And you say they’re earned with data
that people want.
All true. But there’s another term for “points of control”: monopolies. From Facebook
to iTunes, we are seeing more and more Internet applications that are ruled by
Terms of Service and invisible to Google’s crawlers. Say what you will about the
notion that the open Web would subsume all computing functions (surely that
postdates 1995? It is, after all, at the core of Google’s current business model), but
at least it was predicated on openness and interoperation. Today’s post-Web
applications and services are built around artificial scarcity and raising the
barriers of entry to competition.
In short, I’m surprised you’re giving in so easily. From a data, network and business
perspective, today’s closing of the digital frontier makes perfect sense (indeed, we’re
steering that way ourselves with magazine iPad apps. It’s simply the better market).
But from a social, innovative, and macroeconomic perspective, open is almost
always better. As Michael Wolff points out in his companion piece, it’s no surprise
that media moguls (old and new) are pushing to regain control. What’s a surprise to
many is that they’re getting it.
If “the Web” meant the open Web, why aren’t you shedding more tears over its
decline?
1176 retweet
Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 | Full Page | Next
Tags: apps, debate, html, html5, internet, web, www

250 Yahoo! Buzz Stumble ShareThis
PREVIOUS NEXT
The Web Is Dead. Long Live the Internet Original Models: A Look at Iconic Tech
Prototypes
Comments (19)
You can now use your email address to login. If you're not yet registered with
your thoughts and opinions.
Email: Password:
It's fast and free.

Remember me
Forgot your sign in information?
Posted by: donnst | 08/17/10 | 11:38 am |
I’m just glad people are making the distinction again. For too long, laypeople thought of the web and
the Internet as synonymous. Now that client software other than web browsers are in widespread use
again, people are hopefully a little more educated as to the nature of the Internet and computer
networks.
Posted by: ericlr | 08/17/10 | 11:45 am |
@donnst–I’ve got a newsflash for you, the average layperson STILL thinks of them as synonymous.
Most people could car less if their facebook posting is send via Hypertext Transfer Protocol or some
proprietary facebook app’s protocol. They just want it posted, and don’t know or care about the
distinction.
Posted by: mokalpoa | 08/17/10 | 12:04 pm |
Usage of Apps doesn’t mean – Not using the web. Entirely.
How many times did the user, clicked on the ads, or connect to an external link from that app to
browse more info. Now that’s web usage. And you bet that was not counted (on the ’so-called’ study
being pointed out on the other article related to this one) Android-iOS 4 App Wars To Kill Web?
Frankly, if you expect people to believe a statement then you should have a laid facts. A real chart
explaining actual percentage of using it. Not just a mumbo-jumbo straight from the opinion of Mr.
layman and Prince.
But I guess, these series of write-ups were just made for the sole purpose of trolling out people and
make them realize that ‘OMG, WEB IS DEAD!”. Right…
A very good misleading title to start the pot of gold out on wired magazines again for this month.
Posted by: billc2 | 08/17/10 | 1:09 pm |
A very narrow discussion re the use of the web and people’s perception of it. It is an observation of the
tip of the iceberg. We’ve only barely begun to see the ubiquity of the web/internet in all that we do
including smart power meters, on-line car navigation, connected appliances (with phone apps to tell you
when the clothes are dry)or clothes that tell us when they are dry, and a billion other uses. What this
means for openness and free access I have no idea but I’m sure that as the iceberg emerges the lay of
the land will change in ways we have not yet considered.
Posted by: djc8080 | 08/17/10 | 1:23 pm |
Sorry, this discussion reminds me of the fable, blind men with the elephant. Ultimately, its the rants and
raves of two publishers and a small ad network – whereas the real players (Jobs, Zuckerberg, Schmidt)
are missing in action. I applaud the open disclosure of their thoughts, but find the conclusions lacking in
substance. Better stick to interviews of the experts. Again, sorry.
Posted by: MarkMcA | 08/17/10 | 5:53 pm |
The next evolution of the Internet will be the worldwide computer.
All the supercomputers on Earth, running for a full year, would produce less compute-hours than the
Internet can provide in a single day. The net is the ultimate supercomputer; immensely powerful, self-
maintaining, self-improving and always switched on.
Once we start using it properly, we’ll find that our favourite billion-CPU machine can do a lot more than
just Facebook and shopping.
Posted by: cursedperverse | 08/18/10 | 9:51 am |

I agree with O’Reilly “Openness is where innovation happens; closedness is where value is captured.”
but I think the Web is far from dead, In my opinion it’s only out of focus for the moment, and it’s gaining
the necessary momentum for a come-back. On the other hand it’s no surprise that the app-based
consumption is growing so fast, the “open field” has always been only for a few innovative players, and
the “closed field” has been for the masses. That is because essentially the average consumer doesn’t
want to discover the information he needs, he wants that information to be delivered to him (once by
the mainstream media, today the via apps).
Posted by: AshmanE | 08/18/10 | 11:15 am |
What’s really happened here is that for the past 20 years or so, the paradigm of the “web” has become
increasingly worthless. As time has gone on, the loose collection of disparate data (i.e. “webpages”) we
called the “web” has been distilled down to specific entry points that people use to get to specific pools
of data. If I want news, I may go to CNN. If I want to check the stock at my local Target, I go to
Target.com. If people would think of web portals/pages such as Amazon, MSNBC, Wikipedia, etc. as
Apps in their own right, then the distinction becomes moot. Who cares if the browser displays the
content or a dumbed-down browser we call an App? It’s the access to specific pools of information that
matters not the method of displaying it or giving us access to it.
The “Web” is dead because the “web” evolved out of that original paradigm almost immediately when
webpages ceased to be static and evolved into demand-driven database queries. From that point on, it
was the “Apps” that gave us access to pools of data that always mattered. They just happened to be
coded as web pages until mobile devices forced them out of that paradigm. So they’re very correct to
say that the “Web” is dead (or more accurately probably never existed in any usable form in the first
place) and the Internet (the interconnected pools of data and the infrastructure supporting it) is alive
and well… It’s just like music. People’s love of and consumption of music is alive and well, but the
delivery methods keep changing…
The thing they possibly did right this time around is that they charged for the apps from day one rather
than giving them away and then trying to put the cat back in the bag after the fact. What will be
interesting to see is whether people will pay for the Apps if the access to the pools of information is still
available through a browser for free, or whether the content companies will be forced to shut down the
access to their data via the browser in order to monetize via the Apps, or some combination like the
“freemium” model. It’s my guess that they’ll begin to shut down free access to their data in some
fashion. After all, why buy the cow when you get free milk? I have a paid subscription to Wired but I bet
that many people who read the articles via their browser do not. In my opinion, Wired (and other
content companies) should have charged for access to this data, regardless of the delivery method,
from day one, and why not? It takes money to put this stuff together and we all have a vested interest
in seeing the creation of content continue. Shouldn’t we be paying for that value added to society? In
the end, there is no free lunch…
Posted by: vmarco | 08/18/10 | 2:11 pm |
Moving from HTML to XML doesn’t constitute the death of open standards. Sure mobile apps do
enable proprietary protocols, but most are just putting a different face on the same information, now
available through an XML service which can be served up via an HTML app or any app, including
mobile apps. In fact, it is almost insane to call them App Stores, because in most cases they are only
selling us the front end. The web stopped being the web 10 years ago, when it stopped focusing on
hypertext-linked documents and started trying to become an application platform. Today’s browser isn’t
the original Netscape any more than an iOS app isn’t today’s browser. The standards have moved to
the service level so that our UI clients can innovate and bring us new technologies without losing
access to the data behind them. In a few years embedded chips will likely replace these smart phones.
So what, that is how technology evolves. If you want to continue to focus on the web browser as the
only web interface then have at it. It was flawed coming out the door anyway, with only semi-
compatibility between the vendors. Guess we still haven’t learned from that one.
Posted by: wired200905271901 | 08/18/10 | 4:50 pm |
Your “question” is unsound:

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2010/08/whats-wrong-with-x-is-dead/61663/
Posted by: aaronschaber | 08/18/10 | 5:22 pm |

The majority of everyday internet users are getting all the info the need from their webapps like twitter,
facebook, google, gmail, etc. True. But, people who use the web for more than the completion of their
daily routine will always keep the it open, free, and useful. The users that employ the web as a way to
explore their unknown world & seek specific information will always be present, and that’s the type of
info that money can’t be made on. It’s too specific, it’s too obscure, the audience is too small to be
profitable. Long live the specialized web.
Posted by: joshmarshall | 08/18/10 | 8:44 pm |
I have to say I think there are some large assumptions here with which I principally disagree. We have
had closed, proprietary gateways to the web since its inception, since we first started using search
engines. Google’s primary product is NOT open — it is a distilled form of information, culled through a
series of proprietary algorithms. Accordingly, the use of HTML necessitates optimizing your site content
for search engines. How is this different than serializing your data in JSON, XML, etc. for a mobile
app? Are we defining the Web based purely on the display device? This is a seriously limiting
perspective, and quite inaccurate — how long now have web designers been organizing their data for a
variety of display devices? Are RSS clients not part of the “open web”?
I think, instead of putting a moratorium on a nebulous concept like the “Web”, we should instead kill the
term “open”, or at least acknowledge that open really only means information. The same feeds that
populate a mobile app can, and frequently are, used to populate HTML frontends, other services, etc.
And information available on web has had closed doors since the very first login screen. Are
authorization services not part of the “open web”?
Maybe I’m missing something, but with all of these modifiers I’m not really sure I recognize the “Web”
that’s dying — or that I ever even used it. That “open web” died when we stopped typing in URLs.
Posted by: john_titor | 08/24/10 | 10:28 pm |
Is this seriously a discussion serious people are seriously having???? I can think of 9,058 things more
pointful to talk about, and that’s just in my kitchen.
Posted by: apps4change | 08/26/10 | 2:24 pm |
the web is dying…what about the desktop?…http://bit.ly/9fHSnC
Posted by: knowledgenotebook | 08/30/10 | 7:15 pm |
“If “the Web” meant the open Web, why aren’t you shedding more tears over its decline?”, the front of
my shirt is already soaked

In all earnestness, great discourse.
O’Reilly wins on the technical side, but he argues for “machines”, sorry, Tim.
Anderson wins over philosophy, which defines us, human beings, you got my vote.
Posted by: seeds | 09/9/10 | 12:50 am |
The web is not dead. It is merely evolving to another level. The web was always an app or protocol like
ftp and irc. It will coexist with the new apps that are ubiquitous now. Eventually the app revolution
becomes saturated and something else steals the spotlight. Your guess is good as
Posted by: atoddr | 09/27/10 | 10:24 am |
The Web is Snoozing… Not dead.
Chris and Michael, I love your article (The Web is dead.) and this thread of commentary also. But I see
the cycle of open web and proprietary platforms progressing in a slightly different light. Wouldn’t you
expect people with a corporate mindset to bring their wizardry to bear on the vast opportunities the
web offers, and somewhere along the line hit pay-dirt? So now they have. But is this the last phase in
this technical evolution? Is the web dead?
You know it isn’t, and as an editor of a technical magazine you’ve got to believe this is just a current
state of affairs? Hey, just because it’s fashionable to move away from the wild and wooly web of five or
ten years ago doesn’t mean everybody is going to jump on board. While the suits came up with a way
to corner the web for profits and ongoing monthly income streams, others continue to search for
creative ways to leverage the webs freedom. The long tail lives on, and of all people Chris, you should
be the last person on the planet to overlook this fact.
After all, as you so eloquently note, in choosing to buy iphones and sign up for monthly app
subscriptions, or rent Netflix the American consumer is trading money for time. There are a whole lot
more people gaining access to the web right now, all around the globe, that will certainly bargain for
the exact opposite. They aren’t wealthy and would much prefer investing time to save money. In fact,
I’m sure they continue to see the web as a fabulous opportunity to create new connections. Hell, there
are still a lot of people just like that right here in the United States.
In time openness catches up with the trend towards dedicated platforms and the advantages of those
walled gardens falls apart. People still do search. They sit down and seek information about what’s on
their mind. They may get that information from a closed network, but they won’t know if they’ve got the
best information unless they compare it with everything else that’s out there. On a dedicated network
you are always limited. And although, those limitations may offer advantages by filtering out a lot of
background noise, they also filter out more substantial things like the ability to make global
comparisons.
Then there is economics. Material resources are always scarce and wind up in bidding wars that make
them expensive. The economics of the internet is different, it’s built on a resource that is almost free
and infinitely available after you get past the entry threshold of obtaining a computer and access to
broadband. So the cycle naturally works against walled in gardens.
As you’ve noted, these gardens are artificial enclosures, so eventually someone offers the same
material for free. As free or even just substantially cheaper platforms come available than guess what
happens to iphones? I mean why pay for Microsoft Office when you can get Open Office for free?
Dedicated platforms for profit, where the company’s interest are more important than the community
that uses the platform is a long-run, losing proposition.
And what about apps? The deck is already stacked towards the eventual replacement of expensive
apps with free apps simply because so many apps are close to useless
For example, I was at a party a few months ago when my friend’s phone farted. You can’t believe that a
rude app is going to get a laugh more than once. That particular app may, however, serve as a great
metaphor for many other apps now out there.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t deny that dedicated platforms are currently gaining traction. I’m certain,
however, what’s really going on here is that while the US works at monetizing the web with proprietary
networks at the head of the curve, the long tail behind that head is globalizing. And, as others find uses
and methods further down the tail, the US could be left holding a bunch of barking and oinking phones.
Or maybe I’m overstating things. Yeah, we’re probably not going to be left behind, instead I’d wager on
the re-emergence of web creativity and tinkering right here. So that means another iteration of the
open-closed cycle is just around the corner.
Posted by: junosque55 | 10/3/10 | 8:42 pm |
The web ain’t dead and the data is so misleading. Web is just lighter, much lighter, than rich media
leveraging the internet protocol. It’s such a misleading claim that web is dead when we’re comparing kb
to mb or gb. I would have expected more from Wired.com to make an appropriate analysis.
Regardless of open web or “closed” app stores, users are getting more fragmented by platforms based
on their choice of hardware. The one channel that breaches these platforms is the web and it’s not
dying. In fact the web will play a more pivotal role in creating brand awareness. It is cheaper to develop
/ design / distribute on the web and it’s cross platforms.
There will always be “Free” content available. News publishers are running into the rut as their
traditional business / organisational setup ain’t optimise for the web channel. There’s just way too much
overheads to make it profitable. Content publishers need to find more flexible web content publishing
models that works and differentiate content delivered via different channels.
Web still remains a vital piece of the internet. It’s just dwarfed by the heavy content of richer content ..
and that’s alright. It’s just NOT dying. Content just got smarter, capabilities just got better, rich media
just got heavier, and users just got fuzzier.
Posted by: face | 10/24/10 | 9:38 am |

Incredible information! Not easy to find such a great quality content on internet.
Thank you very much for sharing!!
facebook the social media Once we start using it properly, we’ll find that our favourite billion-CPU
machine can do a lot more than just Facebook and shopping.
Subscribe
Condé NastNast web
web sites: sites:
How the Web Wins | Epicenter | Wired.com

All Wired
PREVIOUS POST NEXT POST
How the Web Wins

By Evan Hansen August 17, 2010 | 9:00 am | Categories: Media, Mobile Internet, Social Media, Web Tech
If the second coming happened right now,

Jesus would probably show up as an app.
It seems everything these days is an app, or

awaiting approval, so don’t be surprised. You
read it here first.
What’s funny is that we’ve had a killer app for Subscribe to WIRED
the internet all along, no need for a second Renew
coming. It’s called the web. Give a Gift
Publishers have gone down the app road
before. The idea of putting out periodicals as
executable files is as old as the “disk
magazines” of the 1980s and 1990s. These Gowalla Set to Check In at Sundance Film Festival
were delivered on floppies via snail mail with
Microsoft Builds Online Tracking Blocking Feature Into
custom editions for the Commodore 64 and IE9
Apple II, for example, since there were no
With Chrome OS, Google Doubles Down on the Cloud
cross-platform standards at the time outside
of text-only ASCII. Google Launches Online Bookstore, Challenging
Amazon
What happened? The web. Facebook Profiles Get a Facelift
Online Tracking Firm Settles Suit Over Undeletable

Today’s apps do some things better than the Cookies
web, which is why they are so popular. They Chrome Store Possibly Launching Dec. 7
offer developers greater design control and access to some hardware features that browsers can’t touch.
CALM Act Passed, Will Quiet Loud TV Commercials
Users get big performance enhancements and better responsiveness.
Within A Year
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Do: ‘Objectivity’ in the Age

But there are big tradeoffs involved, too, and the web is far too powerful to be replaced by an alternative
of the Internet
that gives away so much of what developers and readers have come to love and expect.
Xmarks Lives: LastPass Buys Downtrodden Bookmark-
Syncing Service
Notably, the web makes it very easy to share, link, embed, cut and paste, bookmark, search – in short,
everything that makes content useful in the web-enhanced world.
Epicenter RSS feed
Reading, it turns out, is not a passive, solitary enterprise; it is deeply tied to social activities. Thanks to
the web, readers are no longer just consumers – they are participants and creators in their own right, Recent Comments
and they are empowered. gflem on With Chrome OS, Google Doubles Down on
the Cloud
rwgentr on CBS to Launch Last.fm HD Radio Stations
This puts the web front and center in the future of media, not off to the side. in Top 4 U.S. Markets
LandShark on With Chrome OS, Google Doubles Down
The web at its core is not a system for publishing articles and on the Cloud
thenameiwantedwasstolen on With Chrome OS, Google
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/how-the-web-wins/[9/12/2010 16:21:14]
rendering them in a browser. Rather it is a system for making

Doubles Down on the Cloud
connections — between documents, devices and ultimately people. bobnjersey on Microsoft Builds Online Tracking
Blocking Feature Into IE9
The ways we do this on the web are changing. Websites as static aaronsen on Microsoft Builds Online Tracking Blocking
destinations are growing less important as people enter into Feature Into IE9
Slozomby on Local Government Forecast: Cloudy with
The Web is Dead. Long Live information flows through social networks. a Chance of Innovation
the Internet Enkinan on Microsoft Builds Online Tracking Blocking
These are large and important changes, but they do not make the Feature Into IE9
web obsolete or less relevant. On the contrary, the advantages of really_crazy2 on Microsoft Builds Online Tracking
The Web is Dead?! A Debate Blocking Feature Into IE9
the web are only growing. Slozomby on Google Launches Online Bookstore,
How the Web Wins Challenging Amazon
The most obvious advantage is that the web is based on standards, Darkplanet on Google Launches Online Bookstore,
giving developers the benefit of a write once, run anywhere Challenging Amazon
How Do Native Apps and Web bilbawbaggins on Facebook Profiles Get a Facelift
Apps Compare? environment. gwmc on Online Tracking Firm Settles Suit Over
Undeletable Cookies
Websites can be published without restraint, whereas apps require CleverWiFiChoice on Ruckus Smart Antennas May Be
approval by third parties. Key to Nationwide Wi-Fi
cogrep on Google, Groupon Stay Mum on Possible
Deal of the Day
As for design, it is a fiction that apps run circles around HTML from a functional and UI point of view. As
popular as apps are today, browsers are closing the gap.
Using HTML, JavaScript and CSS, designers can already match in the browser many of the design Editor / NY Bureau Chief: John C Abell | E-mail |
Twitter
improvements of customized reader apps, without their limitations. New enhancements in the form of
next-generation HTML5 standards, and next-generation broadband and wireless will further level the Staff Writer: San Francisco Ryan Singel | E-mail
playing field. Staff Writer: New York Sam Gustin | E-mail | IM |
Twitter
Contributor: Fred Vogelstein | E-mail
Web designers will learn important lessons from app makers. They will harness the newly-acquired
Contributor: Frank Rose | E-mail
features in mobile browsers, like the ability to embed fonts, audio clips, videos, photo slide shows and
animated data visualizations. Contributor: Jim Hopkinson | E-mail
Contributor: Jeff Howe | E-mail
These new capabilities will have important implications for advertising, which must and will break through Send us a tip
the banner and box myopia of the industry. New, effective and high-value advertising will be created for
the web, and in some cases it already has.
Search Epicenter
Search Epicenter
Online businesses will find new ways to drive revenue online, and selling apps may well be one of them.
But it will not be the only one.
Long live the Internet. Long live the Web.

Android Apple AT&T Books
Browsers Conferences Copyright
Tags: apps, future, iPad, web Current Affairs Deals
Facebook FCC Funding
Google Hardware Hype iPad

iPhone iTunes Legal MicroHoo
Microsoft Mobile Music MySpace
Netflix Newspapers Portfolio Steve Jobs
Like 226 380
Stocks Telecom Television
Twitter Venture Web/Tech
Web Apps Webmonkey Wireless
Work Yahoo YouTube
Advertising Net Neutrality
Book Review People
Broadband Politics
Commerce Privacy
Cool Apps Search
Crowdsourcing Silicon Valley
Economy Social Media
Comments (12)
Enterprise Spectrum
Entrepreneurs Startups
Finance TED
You can now use your email address to login. If you're not yet registered with Future Shock Telecommunications
Email: Password: your thoughts and opinions. Geo-Location The Cloud
Green Tech Biz Thoughts on a Smarter

It's fast and free. Planet
Intellectual Property
Remember me
Venture Capital
Internet Culture &
Forgot your sign in information? Etiquette Vevo Watch
Internet Diplomacy Video
Letter from Silicon Valley Virtual Worlds
Letter From the UK Web Tech
Media Webmonkey
Posted by: BrendaWalker | 08/17/10 | 11:05 am |
“Websites can be published without restraint, whereas apps require approval by third parties.” Media Hit Wired-o-Nomics
There is no approval process with the Android Market. Miscellaneous WiredBiz
Mobile Internet Wireless
Posted by: Biobob | 08/17/10 | 1:03 pm |
Hahahahhahaa. Very funny. Only one problem ! The internet and or web is the slowest thing on this
computer – and not just a little bit slower but totally awesomeness slower. Until we all have T1 or equal
Nexus S by Google
and servers are all UBERNESS, this will always be the case.
Powered by Gingerbread. It's The Leanest, Meanest
The Web apps or Browser apps the be all and end all ? NTY very much. Android Phone Yet. - www.google.com/nexus
LEGO® Virtual Road Trip

Explore the Open Road with LEGO®. Start Your
Posted by: joyofsomeone | 08/17/10 | 3:02 pm | LEGO® Road Trip Today! -
That picture is probably one of the creepiest things i’ve seen in a long time. www.BuildTogether.com/LEGO
Prepaid Visa Credit Cards

No Credit Check. No Interest Fees. 100% Approval.
Posted by: rpbird | 08/17/10 | 3:04 pm | Apply Today! - www.RushCard.com
You ever tried surfing or downloading on your phone? Bah. And last time I checked, Apple is still very,
Google TV
very proprietary about the apps that can be placed on its devices. Get TV + Internet + Apps. Get Smart TV. Get Google
TV. - www.Logitech.com/GoogleTV
Ads by Google
Posted by: ramshackled | 08/17/10 | 3:16 pm |
This whole debate is pointless anyway. Businesses are concerned about reaching the maximum
audience possible, more than ever in todays market. Given that there are plenty of people who couldn’t
give two shits about having a smart phone and probably won’t for the forseeable future there’s no way
apps for an overpriced gadget are going to kill off the web, which obviously is accessible from any
cheap computer with an internet connection.
Posted by: samagon | 08/17/10 | 3:36 pm |

this is all really just a question of, is it cheaper to make an app to deliver my content on that phone the
way I want, or is it cheaper to deliver my content the way I want through the browser included with that
phone?
Posted by: samagon | 08/17/10 | 3:38 pm |

addendum to what I just said, this becomes a different matter when we’re talking about flash content on
an iPhone, but then, there isn’t a way to deliver flash content at all through the iphone’s browser, so if
Subscription: Subscribe | Give a Gift | Renew |
they want to deliver that content to iPhone users, they have to make an app. International | Questions | Change Address
Quick Links: Contact Us | Sign In/Register |

Newsletter | RSS Feeds | Tech Jobs | Wired Mobile |
Posted by: rskin11 | 08/17/10 | 5:04 pm | FAQ | Site Map
There’s always (and thankfully) going to be some hybrid of the two takes: one the kind who wants to
work it, and the other who wants to sit and absorb. While apps will live as long as there are businesses
and entrepreneurs determined to drive them, the web will persist through the efforts of thorny and
individualistic creators.
NetworkedBlogs
Posted by: jenjen | 08/17/10 | 6:47 pm | Blog:

Epicenter
This is awesome to read on the same day as your other headline is that the web is dead. Topics:
media, disruption,
business

Follow my blog
Posted by: eliatic | 08/17/10 | 7:12 pm |
I for one like it that the gold-diggers are building bordellos. Clears the air, so to speak.
Posted by: ninapolcha | 08/18/10 | 1:27 pm |
Usage of Apps doesn’t mean – Not using the web. Entirely.

How many times did the user, clicked on the ads, or connect to an external link from that app to
browse more info. Now that’s web usage. And you bet that was not counted (on the ’so-called’ study
being pointed out on the other article related to this one) Android-iOS 4 App Wars To Kill Web?.
Frankly, if you expect people to believe a statement then you should have a laid facts. A real chart
explaining actual percentage of using it. Not just a mumbo-jumbo straight from the opinion of Mr.
layman and Prince.
But I guess, these series of write-ups were just made for the sole purpose of trolling out people and
make them realize that ‘OMG, WEB IS DEAD!”. Right…
A very good misleading title to start the pot of gold out on wired magazines again for this month.
Posted by: knowledgenotebook | 09/2/10 | 8:32 am |

This is nuts. First, definition, for the “app”, are we talking about desktop app, mobile device app or web
app? Otherwise, what are we arguing about?
Subscribe
Condé NastNast web
web sites: sites:
How Do Native Apps and Web Apps Compare? | Webmonkey | Wired.com
witter ebook Feeds

Search Webmonkey
File Under: HTML5, Mobile, Web Apps Webmonkey’s Picks
AUG
Browse Our Tutorials
17
2010
How Do Native Apps and Web Apps Compare? HTML, JavaScript, design and more
By Michael Calore
Two roads diverge on a tablet screen. One is the path to Cheat Sheets
the native app, the other leads to the open web. HTML, CSS and special characters
Luckily, you can take both. The latest mobile devices ship
with a thoroughly modern browser capable of handling The Web is Dead. Long Live the Color Charts
emerging web standards. Beneath that is a modern Internet Brighten up your pages
operating system with access to the magic inside the
hardware: the camera, GPS, gyroscope and compass. But if The Web is Dead?! A Debate
you had to pick one — native app or web app — which How the Web Wins Cut & Paste Code
would you choose? Your decision will make all the Templates and snippets you can
difference in how you approach your design, development How Do Native Apps and Web Apps
steal
and distribution. Compare?
The Issues Native Apps Web Apps
Internet access Not required Required, except for rare apps with
offline capability
Installation/updates Must be deployed or Hit refresh

downloaded
User interface Native apps are responsive Browsers can be clunky, but new
and functional advancements in JavaScript like jQuery
Mobile are catching up fast
Device compatibility Platform-dependent, Platform-agnostic, content can be

hardware-dependent reformatted with CSS to suit any device
http://www.webmonkey.com/2010/08/how-do-native-apps-and-web-apps-compare/[9/12/2010 16:23:00]
Animation/Graphics Fast and responsive Web apps are getting closer, but will
probably always lag
Streaming media Few problems with audio and Flash works where supported. Browser- Recent Comments
video. Flash works, but only if based audio and video are getting there,
rent a car on Chrome 8 Offers Built-in PDF Tools,
the device supports it but still beset by compatibility Security Fixes
headaches. Give it a year or two
Ersin Çayan on Google Shows Off Chrome OS, Along
Fonts Tight control over typefaces, Almost on par, thanks to advancements With a Store to Fill it Up
layout in web standards. Give it six months
Do it Yourself website on Google Shows Off Chrome
OS, Along With a Store to Fill it Up
Is my content Not on the web By default
searchable? Carolina Bang Style dress on Why Percentage-Based
Designs Don’t Work in Every Browser
Sharable/Tweetable? Only if you build it in Web links are shared freely. Social APIs
and widgets allow easy one-click posting Carolina Bang Style dress on Chrome 8 Offers Built-in
PDF Tools, Security Fixes
Discussion and Only if you build it, and it’s Discussion is easy, all data is stored on
collaboration more difficult if data is a server Recent Articles
disparate
Access to hardware Yes, all of them: camera, Access through the browser is limited,
sensors gyroscope, microphone, though geolocation is common
compass, accelerometer, GPS
Development Specific tools required for Write once, publish once, view it
some platforms (like Apple’s). anywhere. Multiple tools and libraries to
You have to build a new app choose from
for each target platform
Can I sell it? Charge whatever you want. Advertising is tolerated, subscriptions
Most app distributors take a and paywalls less so. No distribution
slice, up to 30% costs beyond server fees
Distribution Most app stores require No such hassle

approval. And you gotta wait
Outside access to No, the reader must download Yep, just click a link
your content your app
Advertising Control over design (though More choices for design, plus access to
limited in iAds) and rate web analytics. Rates vary widely
See Also:
YouTube Launches New HTML5 Mobile Site

DeviantArt’s Muro Drawing App Is Pure HTML5 Awesomeness
Test Your Site at Any Size With ResizeMyBrowser
Tags: android, iPad, Mobile, The Web Is Dead, Web Apps, Wired Magazine
249 retweet

blog comments powered by Disqus
Subscribe
Condé NastNast web
web sites: sites:
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast
Digital.

The Web Is Dead. Long Live The Internet - Magazine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Web Is Dead. Long Live The Internet - Magazine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Web Is Dead.

Long Live the Internet | Magazine

Sign In | RSS Feeds AllWired

FEATURES START PLAY

Sources: Cisco estimates based on CAIDA publications, Andrew Odlyzko

Two decades after its birth, the World Wide Web is in

How Do Native Apps and Web Apps

Who’s to You wake up and check Who’s to An amusing

Blame: your email on your

and “headlines sent to a pager” — but the point

This was all inevitable. It is the cycle of

but an acceptable email address (from a

For quite a while this was masked by the

Unfortunately, what you got wasn’t much.

Editor in chief Chris Anderson

2010. The correct version appears in the print magazine.

Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 | Full Page | Next

Academics for Mere Politicians

Video: Blackberry Playbook Hands-On Demo

1st Day of Geekmas

IFan Case Charges iPhone with Wind Power

New Sesame Street Games Chase Some Clouds Away

Nintendo Products to Consider for the Holidays

13 Yahoo! Buzz Stumble ShareThis

Sign in to comment Not a member?

It's fast and free.

Forgot your sign in information?

Posted by: idiganalytics | 09/13/10 | 10:50 am |

“The “WorldWideWeb” is a “web” of “hypertext documents” viewed by “browsers” using a client–server

Posted by: samuelrealtalk | 09/15/10 | 11:15 am |

Kinda far out there if you ask me!

Posted by: ReaM | 09/19/10 | 7:30 pm |

Peer to Peer means video games?

Posted by: mdobbs | 09/21/10 | 4:06 pm |

Posted by: eforblue | 09/25/10 | 5:00 pm |

Posted by: unplu | 09/27/10 | 7:31 pm |

Posted by: Hank | 09/28/10 | 5:46 pm |

Posted by: tomreavey | 10/1/10 | 9:28 am |

Posted by: swagval | 10/22/10 | 8:12 pm |

You confused the means for the ends here.

Posted by: riyadsoft | 10/23/10 | 4:13 am |

Posted by: MarcOliver | 10/28/10 | 5:37 pm |

When the web is dead – when did the website died?

Posted by: olinhyde | 11/6/10 | 10:30 pm |

Condé Nast Web Sites:

Webmonkey | Reddit | ArsTechnica | Details | Golf Digest | GQ | New Yorker

Wired.com © 2010 Condé Nast Digital. All rights reserved.

Sign In | RSS Feeds AllWired

FEATURES START PLAY

The Web Is Dead? A Debate

something much bigger than we’d seen before.

Looking forward to continuing this discussion.

data servers and specialized clients.

Pages: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 | Full Page | Next

Tags: apps, debate, html, html5, internet, web, www

250 Yahoo! Buzz Stumble ShareThis

Sign in to comment Not a member?

It's fast and free.

Forgot your sign in information?

Posted by: donnst | 08/17/10 | 11:38 am |

Posted by: ericlr | 08/17/10 | 11:45 am |