Unless you have a core feature that _can't_ be implemented in Electron for some reason (I guess you're writing a game or something similar?), or have some other mechanism for locking your users in, writing a native app in 2018 is just putting your employees livelihood at stake.
It's not cool or fair at all, sure, but hey, us Marxists were telling you this will always happen for over 150 years now, and y'all still acting surprised.
I didn't write this wasn't true; I wrote this didn't matter.
Edit: to expand on this a bit: sure, most of the throwaway Electron applications won't have much life in them. But they'll suck the oxygen out of the room and kill everything else first, then fail. So if there was any livelihood staked on those superior native apps you made — well, those people are looking for jobs now. Hope all of them have it as easy as a young software developer.
I agree, and this is the other reason I dislike Electron apps. Not just because of the utter disregard for user's computing resources, but also because of the damage those apps do to their surrounding ecosystems. It's hard to compete against people who can secure money faster than you by cutting corners and dumping waste on everyone else.
It's yet another example of "worse is better" causing a setback in the industry.
So the parent seems correct. Winamp stayed native an lost. Spotify embraced the rapid dev that using a browser host brings to app dev and won.
If an Electron "application" is decent, people typically like the features or the online service to which it's tied but its Electron base is something that people more or less tolerate, depending on the degree it irks them. It's just a huge tradeoff, that's all. It reminds me of some Java or Python desktop applications, it's a similar kind of tradeoff.
Hopefully it'll pass just like the previous fads.
Disclaimer: Not an Electron fanboy, I don't even develop Electron apps. I do enjoy using a Linux dev laptop, however, and am not a hardcore vim/emacs guy.
Which is why electron is so popular. I'm sure the whole "it's way easier to whip something together that kinda works" is correct in the short term. You whip something up and rely mostly on the hype and viral marketing to drive your app.
The degree to which people didn't want to pay for music was kind of obvious when people needed mp3 players sufficient storage that filling them legally would have required as much money as a down payment on a house.
Spotify and Pandora are for letting you play a service's music. Winamp and 17 bazillion players are for letting you play a collection of digital music you control.
None of the four bullet points actually address real issues. The security problem isn't that Google is bad at security (they're among the best really). The problem is that Javascript code is generally written with the expectation that it will run in a web browser's highly locked down security context. Performance is really the same issue: web apps are authored wastefully. For use cases where you visit a web page for a few minutes then leave that's fine, but when you then let that code run for hours with no sandbox you will inevitably hit perf issues.
Write native apps. If you can't afford that, just make a web page.