| But again, would it really make any significant difference in the vast majority of users? If slack had taken the time to devote another team to developing another application (because they still need to support the web), possibly multiple applications for each platform, would they be where they are today? Would that time and money pay off in any way? I really believe it wouldn't. To save a few hundred mb of RAM, you are looking at triple or quadruple your development and maintenance costs, not to mention making it that much more costly to add new features. That doesn't seem like a good payoff. Obviously in places where it did make a difference (mobile platforms) they went completely native, and it shows in both the positive and the negative. Their mobile apps look and feel native, and work quite well, but they lag behind the "web based" clients in features. (most notably the new voice chat options are not in the mobile versions) In a perfect world every application would be custom developed for each and every platform, and no expense would be paid to ensure that there are 0 wasted resources, but we are far from a perfect world. Having a slack app that runs on any desktop platform, feels the same between all of them, and allows Slack as a company to exist is a win in my book, even if it uses a few hundred mb more than it should (which again, for me it only uses 100mb of ram, that's 1/320th of my total ram on this machine, and only like 40mb more than the tab that i'm writing this comment on is taking). |
I don't think writing native apps is so much more difficult that a web app like Slack. If anything, it's probably the opposite.
There are cross-platform (native) apps with custom UIs, like DAWs and NLEs that are an order of magnitude more complex in both their UI and their logic code, and yet are done with teams and by companies that have an order of magnitude less funding than a company like Slack.