Except that I can't actually access the app from that URL, so I wouldn't consider that equivalent.

Rich apps like Google Wave, however, can be accessed directly in the browser, as can apps like Gmail and Google Latitude. It's unfortunate that the majority of these apps are developed by Google, but frameworks like iUI and jqTouch bring this kind of functionality to the broader web.

I think it's silly to suggest that Apple's app links that redirect to iTunes are somehow equivalent or equally meaningful as fully functioning applications.

I understand what you're saying, but it strikes me as a very tortured and flimsy excuse for the App Store's presence in the article.

By your reasoning, there's no URL for GIMP either. Does that make it part of the URL's death knell? (I wouldn't consider a URL to an Debian repository to be much different than a URL to an App Store, after all...it doesn't take me to the program, but it will allow me to configure a special piece of software to obtain & install the program for me.)

That page doesn't show Super Monkey Ball; it's a prompt to download iTunes.

True, and all of the flash content on the web shows me a prompt to install a plugin, and therefore can't be referenced by URL either.

Meanwhile, Flash gets no mention in the article?

That's because everyone can publish Flash. No middlemen, gatekeepers or censors required.

For the most part you need to have purchased the right kind of tools to create Flash software, or acquired a license to the Flash server technology.

As well, to the best of my knowledge, no one besides Adobe can change the underlying Flash spec, so I would completely disagree with your assertion.

You disagree with my assertion that everyone can publish Flash apps because you cannot change the Flash spec and you have to pay for Adobe's tools if you choose to use them? I don't get your logic.

Even if I had to pay Adobe to create or publish Flash apps, which is not the case, they wouldn't be able to censor me. Big difference for me.