zlacker

I get your point and do have a strong preference towards native apps too.

But there are other important factors to consider. I was working on a B2B app where users could see graphs and maps of a construction site in real time. The users were extremely happy how fast we could implement and release change requests and bug fixes. It was an ionic app. As far as I know, performance or lack of OS integration was never a problem. At the end of the day it's about choosing the right tool for the task.

>>emsy+(OP)
They were happy because 80/100 is better than 0/100.

But how much happier would they be with 100/100. Just because you feed your guests chicken and they like it doesn’t mean that they would not like lobster more.

A good MacOS or Windows Dev can move just as fast as a web developer trying to make fake-native apps.

>>briand+Dm
Yes, but one platform at a time. We served updates to Android and iOS users almost simultaneously. Again, I usually prefer native, non GCed apps. But I also don't try to fix problems where there are none.

If Android and iOS made it easier to share middleware libraries (C++ is a second class citizen for both), I think there would be a smaller incentive for HTML5 apps.

>>emsy+Ox
But the fact is that they would probably still be happier if you have served them native apps at the same rate because the native apps probably had been better in some way.

I get that sometimes it's not feasible to built native apps because you have to do the work twice in the same time and so on, but that is completely irrelevant to how good the product is. Is it good enough? That is a different thing entirely.

>>fredsi+1A1
But to circle back to the original topic - if users would be much happier with 100/100 instead of 80/100, then Apple's refusal to allow developers to achieve 90/100 with the same effort is crippling user happiness.

>>Sacho+VA1
Are they not allowing it? Do you mean that because you have to use their platform specific tech instead of some cross-platform tech, they are not allowing it? Maybe they don't believe that you can ever reach 100/100 with "webapps", except if you lower the general perception of what 100 is to what is actually 80?

I certainly don't believe so.

I think part of the gap is that some folks believe features are everything, and others believe that features are one thing, and quality, support, accessibility and other stuff is just as important, the stuff that in my mind makes good products in general, both in software and hardware, but also in wood-working and clothing and so on.

If features are everything, I can see why cross-platform is what you want, but that is so far away from anything that is Apple.

>>fredsi+uC1
It's not even that. I hate it when a website prompts me to install their stupid app for funtionality that could easily fit in a webapp. If this standard means I don't have to install an app for every website I would be very happy.