No boxes, printed manual, expensive shipping costs, CD’s, distribution channels, middlemen, etc. Desktop apps are going to be more economical to produce and will result in a lower cost of sale!

Do you not mean Web apps are going to be more economical?

No boxes, printed manual, expensive shipping costs, CD’s, distribution channels, middlemen, etc. Desktop apps are going to be more economical to produce and will result in a lower cost of sale!

Do you not mean Web apps are going to be more economical?

“Updates are seamless”
I’ll give you that one; “Clear your browser cache” “Huh?” is the only problem I see. However, there’s still the ability to use regular thin clients, e.g. Citrix.

“No legacy”
What? Aren’t there people still clinging to that evil NS4, or to IE6, or to Lynx?

“No admin rights required”
Assuming /everything/ you want is on the web, yes. Also, RDP/VNC, Citrix, etc….

“Available anywhere, anytime”
Yay, another Adobe product… am I the only one that sees a problem with that?
Anyway, true so long as the company’s not the one hosting the web apps, otherwise it’s up to the company whether or not it’s available anywhere.
Also, let’s not forget that this can be done with desktop apps anyway (RDP/VNC, Citrix, etc.).

“Platform independent”
N/A. It just turns from “This OS isn’t supported” into “This browser isn’t supported”.

“Less environmental conflicts”
See above, though granted there will still be less.

“Enables social possibilities”
N/A. You can have desktop chat/collab apps as much as you can have web ones, .. just like you can have NO web ones.
Collab files? Network files, collab apps, etc..
Just not applicable.

“Lower cost of sale”
I have to give you that one too.

“Usable from inexpensive PCs”
Thin client? What are you talking about?
Often enough you have to load a fair amount of resources and have to process all those fancy effects - they are a LOT more taxing when emulated from a browser rather than done natively.

“Piracy-proof”
Piracy often occurs from the inside, i.e. leaks, and therefore this is incorrect. The only way this wouldn’t apply is if everything were to be open-source (Yeah, right - like they’d be that brave!).

“No bad debts”
Conversely, if your web app provider goes bust and you had to use their servers, there go your apps.
Possibly your files too.
“Say, did anyone export that document I spent a few weeks on…?”

“Low-cost support and maintenance”
Instead, you’re just saying, “We did a boo-boo exporting our code from the test server to the production server. Come back tomorrow. Have a day off or something.”
Well, ‘day’ is a stretch, but you get the idea. Everyone using that web app goes down when that happens, not just one person, or one group/team, or (maybe) one company.
This makes potential faults and other issues become a SEVERE cost.

“User’s data is kept safe in hosting environment”
Pseudo-safe. Viruses will adapt to web apps too, likely.

“No Viruses”
As long as there’s something executing, there’s a possibility of infection. It may be harder, but it’s still there.

“Low cost global distribution”
Yeah. All you have to worry about is latency (Again, if not hosted by the company).

“Lower software price entry point for customers”
This was possible beforehand; The ideals that people are having about the Web, however, is forcing companies to realise that sharing with the end-users is a good thing.

“Access to the entire assets of the Web (APIs, widgets, messaging, collaboration)”
…? Do you think these things are exclusive to the web somehow? They quite simply aren’t.
Unless, of course, you’ve forgotten that the Web is part of the Internet (for one).

“Mobile is here”
Depending on your resolution, yes.
Don’t try Gmail on your cell phone! (Although they probably have a special interface for those, the point is that no, you still have to make changes.)

“Widest potential audience”
Given, but it seems to me you’ve already mentioned that with ‘channels’.