[pcr910303]

Yeah, and they are successful (mostly due to networking effects — all of the apps you’re mentioning have strong network effects) in spite of their app quality.

The Facebook app is criticized everywhere, I can’t think of anyone who likes their app.

AFAIK AirBnB once used RN but moved to native development, and Twitter use native widgets.

Also, don’t forget that they have the resources to develop all of the expected features of native widgets, for example Accessibility. The OP probably doesn’t.

And, this is all talking about RN which is actually half native since they use native widgets; Flutter is much worse than this because they draw their own widgets.

[listenallyall]

>> don’t forget that they have the resources to develop all of the expected features

You're talking out of both sides. The OP is obviously limited on resources. That's the exact reason flutter is a good option, he gets an app that works on iOS and Android in one codebase using a modern language. Going native requires 2 distinct code bases, which itself requires learning all the specific quirks and features of each platform. Android adapters and fragments, XML layout, distinct libraries for simple Http calls, object serializers, etc, etc. The only downside you can point to is "its not native" and guess what, see above, users don't really care.

[rohansingh]

> Yeah, and they are successful (mostly due to networking effects — all of the apps you’re mentioning have strong network effects) in spite of their app quality.

That seems to live up with what was said further up the thread:

> People will put up with a lot of garbage if your product fills a need. And non-native UI is not even inherently garbage, just sub-optimal (and even that depends on the product)