Deciding to bet on the web is fine, but shouldn't the immediate next thought be like 'wait, why did the web win?' I think that's a far more interesting topic. It would be hard to argue that it didn't win, and it certainly wouldn't have been easy to see it coming. Someone designed a system for static hyperlinked document presentation... then years later others start shoehorning in broken bits of application-like functionality... years more along, the shoehorning continued with vigorous earnest, subverting every attempt by the W3C to prevent the web from turning into an application platform and remain a static document presentation system.

With so many hurdles to cross, so many things holding it back, why on earth did it win? Clearly not just because it was cross-platform, lots of things did that. Certainly not because it followed any even REMOTE sense of reasonable development. Remember when people used to talk about the utility of standard user interface widgets? I imagine all those people are dead now.

Personally I think it was the ability to search. That trumped absolutely every single other consideration across the board. What users wanted was to vaguely indicate what they wanted and be using that application moments later. There's no reason that HAS to be only how the web works, but it mostly is now. If something comes around that enables that elsewise... maybe consider putting a chip down on that as well.