[cosmic_cheese]

It’s an unpopular take I’m sure, but I really have to question shipping binaries for platforms that I can’t or won’t personally test. Between platform intricacies I don’t understand, unaddressed papercuts, and limited ability to debug issues, the end result is very likely to be underwhelming and/or frustrating for users of that platform, and as such if the app is paid those users are disproportionately unlikely to convert and more likely to churn. The only real benefit I see is an extra platform icon lined up on the marketing page.

[wtallis]

There's also the simple fact that shipping an identical UI on multiple operating systems is obviously wrong for a least some of those operating systems (and maybe all of them). You don't have to worry about "platform intricacies" because a web-based cross-platform UI toolkit is going to get really basic UI conventions wrong.

[cosmic_cheese]

It’s not only UI design/conventions being covered, but also things like quirks with the system’s audio, compositor, window manager, etc depending on what your app does and which technologies it uses. If the dev doesn’t understand these things about a platform, they’re walking into a minefield by supporting it.

[ChadNauseam]

At this point people are more accustomed to chrome’s conventions than the native UI’s conventions in most cases

[int_19h]

But there aren't really many "Chrome conventions" to speak of. Every web app (and Electron app) necessarily has to reinvent a lot of wheels that desktop apps get for free from the underlying OS. And sure, there are component libraries for that... way too many libraries, each of them doing everything slightly differently from others.