I didn't claim otherwise. But AOT != "native".
What makes something "native" is not merely the fact that you compile to machine code. It's one of the main features of native code but far from the only one. Again: there's a reason they came up with ".NET Native" and called it that despite the fact that NGen always did AOT. And there's a reason the Android NDK has an N, unlike its SDK. It actually means something beyond AOT.
You can go against the grain if you want and call them all native apps, telling people they're Wrong On The Internet, but you're just confusing people.
Curious to find out, how those people distinguish it from an MFC/ATL or an Win32 one.
But see for example https://stackoverflow.com/a/855774
If you still don't like the terminology though, I'm not going to keep arguing. I didn't coin the term. You should go ask Microsoft why they didn't call C# native when NGen was already there. I'm just saying that terminology is already established and you're confusing people by using it differently.
Which isn't what users talk about when arguing about native apps, they don't even know what a GC is.
Because I'm sure if you went and asked the vast majority of "users" what a "native app" is, you'd get a coherent answer instead of a blank stare.
Let's lay this matter to rest. You don't like the definition, I get it. It's fine.
.NET has always supported AOT via NGEN, although it only supports dynamic linking and was optimized for fast startup of applications.
Windows 8 introduced the Bartok compiler used by Singularity, where applications would be pre-AOT compiled in the Windows store minus linking, with on-device linking happening on installation.
Windows 10, improved the later scenario with the introduction of .NET Native, slightly based on the Midori experience.
The new Windows 11 store is still fully based on .NET Native, as it makes use of WinUI 2.6.