It only makes sense if you talk about utility webapps (like twitter). Not everything is a webapp though. Wikipedia for example, is just a display of documents. Should it become a fancy webapp? I don't see much benefit in it.
The old page concept is plenty fine in many contexts IMO.
The Browser — A Lament
*Binstock:* Still, you can't argue with the Web's success.
*Kay:* I think you can.
*Binstock:* Well, look at Wikipedia — it's a tremendous collaboration.
*Kay:* It is, but go to the article on Logo, can you write and execute Logo programs?
Are there examples? No. The Wikipedia people didn't even imagine that, in spite of the
fact that they're on a computer. That's why I never use PowerPoint. PowerPoint is just
simulated acetate overhead slides, and to me, that is a kind of a moral crime. That's
why I always do, not just dynamic stuff when I give a talk, but I do stuff that I'm
interacting with on-the-fly. Because that is what the computer is for. People who
don't do that either don't understand that or don't respect it.
The marketing people are not there to teach people, so probably one of the most
disastrous interactions with computing was the fact that you could make money selling
simulations of old, familiar media, and these apps just swamped most of the ideas of
Doug Engelbart, for example. The Web browser, for many, many years, and still, even
though it's running on a computer that can do X, Y, and Z, it's now up to about X and
1/2 of Y.
Wikipedia is pretty bad example imo, as it is actually quite advanced webapp of sorts. More specifically, it's a webapp for authoring, collaborating, searching and viewing documents.
The old page concept is plenty fine in many contexts IMO.