If you think pinning your entire product on a cross platform UI kit when every single one (except maybe QT) had proven a failure... then yeah I think maybe you should consider actually just eating the cost of building native UIs.
The risk analysis of building against supposed cross platform "solutions" just doesn't work out. Why do we keep trying to do it?
The idea of cross platform UI is frankly "f*cked from the jump" and should never have been a goal. I think it's only a goal because it's intellectually satisfying, not because it's really desirable.
I also want to live in the world where risk management is the only variable that determines how CTOs and devs choose the stack for the software.
I think your anecdotes are a bit out of date and irrelevant.
People much better informed than you looked at this problem in a lot more detail in real life situations and came to very different conclusions.
And yet, I can't think of a single app I depend on for anything on Linux that relies on it.
How'd Snap go for Canonical?
Your anecdotes are dated and you should think about updating them so you don’t talk so confidently on things you don’t actually seem to know much about.
I mean that sincerely not as some internet gotcha there’s just no need to sit there defending a position that is based on old info just for the sake of it.
Do you see any reasons why many companies/teams/devs don't want to "just build native UIs" and instead are looking for cross-platform solutions designed from ground apps for modern UI development needs?