This hits the nail. Cross-platform as a cheaper option only comes true if the multi-platform feature delivers real value to the users --which is obviosly the wager that Agile Bits is doing. Otherwise someone else is bound to deliver a similar feature set either with a less price point or with better execution using native frameworks.
Counterpoint: multiplatform frameworks are web-based and thus are easier to learn and have more developer mindshare than native frameworks. But native frameworks are not that much more complicated these days and can use proprietary services: would you roll your own sync or use CloudKit?
CloudKit is definitely satisfactory, but it's limited to Apple devices.
I don't know much about the space, so I may misunderstand the following technologies, but I wish more apps used P2P protocols like IPFS, Hypercore, etc. to keep my devices in sync with an optional pick-your-own-cloud-backup as well, so I can just use Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, etc. The latter seemed to be pretty popular amongst developers for syncing (i.e. pick your cloud backup service) not too long ago and while there's still apps that do this, like Notability, I don't know why so many developers moved to rolling their own sync.
CloudKit is definitely satisfactory, but it's limited to Apple devices.
That was my point, exactly. If you target only specific platform users, easier development (ie, using Electron and web technologies) does not necessarily win over native frameworks because now they are decorated with powerful vendor services.
Obviously if your target is multiple platforms, you are now on Electron land. That's not a bad thing per se, though.
Comments
This hits the nail. Cross-platform as a cheaper option only comes true if the multi-platform feature delivers real value to the users --which is obviosly the wager that Agile Bits is doing. Otherwise someone else is bound to deliver a similar feature set either with a less price point or with better execution using native frameworks.
Counterpoint: multiplatform frameworks are web-based and thus are easier to learn and have more developer mindshare than native frameworks. But native frameworks are not that much more complicated these days and can use proprietary services: would you roll your own sync or use CloudKit?
CloudKit is definitely satisfactory, but it's limited to Apple devices.
I don't know much about the space, so I may misunderstand the following technologies, but I wish more apps used P2P protocols like IPFS, Hypercore, etc. to keep my devices in sync with an optional pick-your-own-cloud-backup as well, so I can just use Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, etc. The latter seemed to be pretty popular amongst developers for syncing (i.e. pick your cloud backup service) not too long ago and while there's still apps that do this, like Notability, I don't know why so many developers moved to rolling their own sync.
That was my point, exactly. If you target only specific platform users, easier development (ie, using Electron and web technologies) does not necessarily win over native frameworks because now they are decorated with powerful vendor services.
Obviously if your target is multiple platforms, you are now on Electron land. That's not a bad thing per se, though.
Sync is great for justifying a paid subscription model
Also, rolling your own sync is basically a must on multiplatform, I'd say.
Qt, GTK, FLTK, JUCE, NTK, libui are not web-based.
I think that there's more than one definition of "multiplatform" floating around here.