zlacker

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+(OP)
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+U
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+t2
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.