It's a lot more difficult to justify the purchase of a $2000 Mac if 100% of the software can be run on a generic Linux box for half the price.
At least with FF and Chrome being open source and gratis rather than directly commercial some of this motivation is alleviated. It's also more difficult to put up a barrier to entry for a new incompatible feature if your competitor can look at your code base and re-implement it from there.
But TV wins for convenience, cost to develop, and ubiquity, so there's plenty of content developed directly for television.
It's not a perfect simile, but there's enough of a resemblance that thinking the Movie/TV history through stimulates my thinking about native/Web.
JM2(anecdotal and inexpert)C
Assuming (Movies : Apps :: Theater : Operating System), then (Television : Web), makes some sense, but doesn't fully work. The browser (the current medium for interacting with the web), exists on top of the Operating System, but Televisions are not tied to movie theaters in any such way.
On the other hand one obvious thing TV and the web do have in common is ads, versus up front cost of admission with native apps and movie tickets.
I might be old fashioned, but I see native apps as tools. Sturdy things that you can count on to do a task well. Browsers are one such tool used for communicating over the web. I see the web as a medium of communication rather than a tool. I suppose this mental model is why web apps feel wrong to me.
[0] Except that a bunch of people at Google have forgotten this fact (or never learned it when they jumped over from Microsoft), and re-implemented the spiritual successors of ActiveX and JScript under new names.