It's proven in the sense that there is freedom to choose to write a native desktop client, and yet nobody does it anymore, regardless of how widely adopted or important their app is to the business.

It's enough proof for me, at least.

Native apps continue to exist for areas where browser APIs aren't sufficient yet, that's true. But those will get replaced once a sufficient API supports it

I partly agree, but I disagree at the point that there may be no correlation between the amount of non-native apps and the overall "happiness" of users.

Just because business see that it's cheaper does not make it the better option.

Also from a user perspective there are many benefits with a software that exists on many platforms. It's often better with a slightly less good/snappy app that runs on all platforms than a perfect app than runs only on one platform. It's a feature.

It could also be said that it's a feature that the app does not 100% follow the native UI as the experience will be the same irrespective of which OS you are on.

So you sell everything as a feature?

Is it a feature, that MS Teams (as a default setting) does not use native notifications on OS X? As a user, I have to disable two notifications now, because one does ignore the system setting. I don't know how to sell that "feature"... Imagine having many apps with each having it's own notification setting, layout and appereance.. That's hardly an improvement to the status quo.

I don't use teams, but MacOS notifications are mediocre at best. I would consider a better implementation by app a feature.

Sure but the parent didn’t say better. Is there any example of a better implementation since Growl?

That is only a feature for app developers and (especially) the marketing departments of companies who do so, not platform users. I use non-platform native UI as a leading indicator of contempt for users.

>It's proven in the sense that there is freedom to choose to write a native desktop client, and yet nobody does it anymore

There’s factors occluding this though I think-the JS/web stack has had millions of dollars of investment thrown at it by parties with a vested interest in seeing it succeed, so a lot of UX issues and friction points have been smoothed over as much as possible.

The wider native UI ecosystem hasn’t had the same investment, so I’m not surprised it’s superficially “easier” for devs to thrash out a UI with web tooling. Doesn’t mean the resulting application is actually any better though.

I mean, you could simply say you don't care about your users, it's not that hard.

Web apps are dreadful, regularly lock up, and are an active step back in computing. But hey, if your startup can spew out a shitty app much faster, good for you.

> And then I look at a lot of crap browser-based software (like MS Teams)

I actually prefer to run MS Teams in a browser tab instead of installing it to my computer. Same with Slack or Zoom. I'm not losing much since their core functionality relies on an internet connection. Full-blooded browsers are also more likely to stay up to date than the bundled Chromium build, and I can enjoy the peace of mind from a modern browser sandbox.