The Unwelcome Return of Platform Dependencies
techcrunch.com
techcrunch.com
In addition, I don't see what any of this has to do with the initial premise that the web provided a way of avoiding the complexities of cross-platform development.
That was not the initial premise. It was about the web supposedly removing the platform dependencies. Not the technical ones but the business ones - basically an unremovable third party between the developer and their customers. Here's an example of such an article by Tim Bray:
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...
Quote: "You’re not a sharecropper, especially not a sharecropper, if you’re building on the Web platform. If you can define your value-add as a series of interactions via a browser, or an interchange of XML messages, nobody can whip the land out from under you."
The above is no longer true. The Web alone is not enough to avoid being a sharecropper.
It's just not true about Facebook and etc apps.
The web hasn't suddenly vanish with the rise of other platforms.
I think the problems the article is talking about are more akin to library dependencies in desktop/server development rather than (more extensive) platform dependencies and the complexities of targeting multiple platforms.
If I build a Web app, what unremovable third-party am I required to use?
The conclusions and lead-in should have been that as with the desktop market, on the web do not trust the platform providers. reply
http://astore.amazon.com/hypernumbersc-20/detail/0684841487
He points out that pricing power in a supplier relationship is held by whichever side would find it easier to integrate into the other ones space. So Apple vs App Makers, Facebook vs in-Facebook games, Twitter vs Twitter apps...
There can be a healthy acquisition route for successful startups in a supplier relationship - but only for the first one of its kind.