The bottom line is that the Wired article simultaneously repeats an obvious pointthat we're using more and more apps instead of pointing a browser at a websiteand misses an equally obvious point, which is that this evolution has nothing to do with the web being 'dead,' or even sickly. The web is healthier than ever. If nothing else, the dramatic growth of Facebook, which most people interact with through their web browser, should help to cement that idea. We may be using specific apps to access specific web-based services, and we may be making less use of all-in-one browsers like Firefox or Safari, but that has little or nothing to do with the web being dead."
Alexis Madrigal at the Atlantic makes the point that it's a little bit satirical how perfectly the future that Anderson predicts aligns with the magazine industry that he represents. Madrigal writes, the great irony is that with this article, Anderson has done a masterful job of showing exactly how and why human beings try to shape the technological narrative of their worlds. We make arguments for personal and intellectual reasons based on our experience, desires, and ideological leanings." Or as John Naughton at The Guardian puts it, That's the message. Now, who is the messenger? Answer: Condé Nast, the publishing conglomerate that owns Wiredas well as the New Yorker, GQ and Vanity Fair."
The web has posed a serious threat to their business model (as it has to almost all print publishers) because they have thus far failed to find a way to get people to pay serious money for online content. The arrival of iPhone (and, later, iPad) apps was the first good news that magazine conglomerates had received in a decade. Why? Because, in contrast to the Wild West Web, apps are tightly controlled and consumers willingly pay for them. As a result, print publishers have fallen on the apps idea like ravening wolves. It enables them to exert tight control over the content, prevent sharing and earn revenue. It represents, in short, the glorious online future."