I think I agree with you, but I need a clear definition of "cheaper."
To me, "cheaper" means that companies are putting fewer resources into Windows-specific app development. That's not unexpected, given large portions of their user base are using MacOS, Android, or iOS. Why would I hire 8 developers to make 4 apps, when I could hire 6 developers to make make 3 or even 2 apps? Oh, as an added bonus, now my app can also be loaded straight from a browser, no installation necessary? And I don't have nagging complaints from small-market-share users (Linux and BSD) complaining that my app doesn't work on their machines? Seems like a no-brainer.
From a business perspective, if the end product is good enough that the customers don't complain, what reason is there to not* use web technologies?
Don't get me wrong, I hate that half the software I use today is just a glorified Chrome tab. I hate how I need 16GB of RAM to do my job.
> I think I agree with you, but I need a clear definition of "cheaper."
I think the best definition of MS products in regard with quality and usability is "cheaper" as in "he is cheap". (i.e. only using the lowest quality crap available)
To me, "cheaper" means that companies are putting fewer resources into Windows-specific app development. That's not unexpected, given large portions of their user base are using MacOS, Android, or iOS. Why would I hire 8 developers to make 4 apps, when I could hire 6 developers to make make 3 or even 2 apps? Oh, as an added bonus, now my app can also be loaded straight from a browser, no installation necessary? And I don't have nagging complaints from small-market-share users (Linux and BSD) complaining that my app doesn't work on their machines? Seems like a no-brainer.
From a business perspective, if the end product is good enough that the customers don't complain, what reason is there to not* use web technologies?
Don't get me wrong, I hate that half the software I use today is just a glorified Chrome tab. I hate how I need 16GB of RAM to do my job.