On a more generally level, I think, it's probably more about amplification vs augmentation, the kind of human-computer symbiosis, what this dialog really is. (Actually, I do prefer Licklider over Engelbart.) Take for example a middle-aged worker in India, who has now one of those new, cheap, not-that-smart phones on a $2/month mobile plan. S/he connects to streaming services via voice search and communicates by the press of a single button. For the first time in her/his life, s/he's able to reach out on her/his own. This is certainly empowering. There's much to be said in favor of such interfaces on devices like this.

However, Licklider's vision of a human-computer symbiosis was of a completely different nature, of partners in cooperation on equal levels. This was not about amplification in this sense, it was about mutual comprehension and directing work flows, with the later heavily depending on the former. This is the desktop environment. Here, simple amplification models are ultimately doing more harm as they may be convenient.

Now, where are the growing markets, what should a company care about? However, this may be a question and an answer too simple. When will our Indian worker gain access to a laptop? The answer may be quite well, "never". Is this still the same market, the same product, the same network?

Maybe in the future we’ll have 2 different apps with a UI optimized for each usage, ie Chrome for Apps and Chrome for web, even if the rendering is the same.