[kaolinite]

Could not agree more.

Firefox has traditionally not been very popular on Mac for this very reason. They've gotten better at imitating OS X slightly, but even today it's still out of the question for me (and I suspect many Mac users) to use Firefox. It feels really awful to use. Whilst Chrome and Safari have nice native scrolling, rubber banding and smooth zooming, just like any other native app, Firefox feels jarring. It only just supports gestures (there's no nice animation like in Safari or Chrome).

My day-to-day browser is Safari. Not because it's faster or technically better (it really isn't) but because it's fully native and integrates properly with the system, e.g. it integrates properly with the downloads folder (showing the progress bar on the file and on the folder icon) and it looks and feels like any other Mac app. Chrome may be faster, Firefox may be more extensible - but I choose Safari because it works properly with the OS.

I really love Mozilla and I would love to use Firefox. I really hope they go with a OS-specific native shell - although I suspect they'll go with building the UI in HTML/CSS. But if they do, there's a good chance I'll switch.

[ndesaulniers]

It's hard for me to believe someone telling me "if it's not 100% native look and feel it's not good" when they're trying to sell something and build a content silo.

> The correct thing to use is AppKit on OS X, WPF on Windows, GTK+ on Gnome, and Qt on KDE.

WHAT?! Personally, being asked to rewrite the UI for X different native platforms is rage-inducing.

Some people who write their apps in Web technologies have done native UIs and are sick of the duplicated effort. ;)

[kccqzy]

Well it's already been done before. Yes it's a lot of effort but the added user experience can be very valuable. Case in point: Transmission is a BitTorrent client that has at least a Web UI, an OS X native UI, a GTK+ and a Qt one. Using the app just feels right, and the little bits of joy while using just adds up.

[jfb]

Web UIs are great for developers, much, much less so for people who don't have an ideological axe to grind or a limited development budget.

[marssaxman]

They are entitled to be lazy, but you get what you pay for and web UKs are never as good as native.

[ndesaulniers]

> They are entitled to be lazy

I really, really don't think that is the case.

[marssaxman]

It's just a judgemental way of saying that they have not made UI quality a priority. They're saving money on dev time by asking users to put up with a lower-quality experience, and I always feel resentful and put-upon when I encounter such an app. I'm likely to scrap it out of spite and use something else which has a better interface, even if it is less featureful.

(also, what happened to the edit link? "UKs" was obviously supposed to be "UIs" above.)

[ndesaulniers]

> They're saving money on dev time by asking users to put up with a lower-quality experience

I think that the idea that somehow if the UI is written in web technologies that it's somehow lesser quality is a false dichotomy. Web developers and native developers can make UIs that look exactly the same to the point where they are indistinguishable.

You have 2 hours after posting to edit a ~~commit~~ comment. Not my favorite "feature."

[marssaxman]

Well, maybe they can, but I haven't seen it happen, and it has never been truly indistinguishable in the past when people have made similar claims. Cross-platform UI tools have been coming and going for years, and "write once, run anywhere" has always been a goal and not an accomplishment. People said the same thing about Java apps, but you could always tell - there was always something that didn't fit right, and the "uncanny valley" effect makes it hard to respond with anything other than revulsion when you realize that you're working with an elaborate fake.