> Webviews are also a moving target so you need a big testing matrix
I say this as a front-end web app dev who would most likely be affected by this kind of shift: it might be slightly less convenient, but I wholeheartedly think it's worth doing, on several levels.
People built web apps 15 years ago in the dumpster-fire that was web standards at the time (and frankly, web tooling too). Browsers, even the good ones, didn't update themselves automatically. Most of the world was still on IE which was actively hostile to web standards for the sake of lock-in (and users weren't even on the same version of IE!). There was nothing like Babel to smooth over the rough edges, there were no polyfills. And even the standards that existed, when you got the opportunity to use them, mostly sucked.
I think, given all that, we can deal with supporting recent-ish Chromium and the latest Safari, if it means bolstering web diversity and saving an order of magnitude in RAM and storage.
I am not sure what the point is of Electron: a shitty-resource hungry app that literally is a wrapped web-app. Instead of writing platform specific apps that leverage the power and capabilities of those platforms, we get a jack of all trades and master of none. Electron is a business decision, not an enlightened technical one.
What value does electron add to the user? I would argue none. That Slack can’t find the resources to write actual Swift for a Mac App is just amazing to me. Instead we are essentially interacting with a lowest-common-denominator web app. Is a chat app that hard to write natively? We’d get better performance, a smaller footprint, and a more polished, platform-specific product.
You've answered your own question as to why people write then.
> What value does electron add to the user?
It adds a lot of value to Linux and to a lesser extent Mac users: before a electron a lot of apps didn't have a version for these platform at all.
My 6 year old MacBook runs slack, Xcode, android studio, safari, chrome, messages, vs code, vim, iterm2, preview, battle.net and hearthstone all the time without issue, really.
I think for the average user, they'd rather have more features across platforms more quickly than a smaller resident memory footprint and install size.
The point is that its effectively a web app.
> What value does electron add to the user?
They have a desktop app faster than if it was being built natively.
Exactly, one can look at Telegram app, it is clean, polished and open source client written as a native app that works across many platforms (and one of few that has Linux client).
On my tablet, a number of current websites don't run even on Chrome, because the tablet isn't particularly new, so it doesn't have current Chrome. It's still great hardware in perfect condition though, everything that does run on it is perfectly smooth and so on, and I still use it. Youtube in particular is fine. Literally the only reason to buy a new one would be to satisfy the software treadmill.
My old phone didn't run Chrome (or Safari). It had Firefox. The only reason I switched to a newer phone, using Android, was because of sites that gradually didn't run well on Firefox any more. That was annoying, having to ditch a perfectly great phone and replace it with something better for the web but worse for other things.
I have a Macbook Pro at home. I'm pretty happy with it, it's still a fine machine, I use it for work every day. It runs the latest Safari that's safe to run on it, but that's not the latest Safari, because it would have problems running the most recent OS.
This brave new world of "I'm sure we'll be fine supporting recentish Chrome and latest Safari" is a world of exclusion. I don't like the memory usage of Electron, but I prefer it to applications that are a bit broken!
Also, to be honest, I've been looking at memory usage. Electron uses much less than any of the three big browsers. You may know that Chrome famously starts a new process for each tab, and Safari does too. Firefox isn't far behind. As a result, the memory saved by running a new page in an already running browser compared with Electron isn't as much as it was long ago, back in the days when tabs shared memory. This is visible with Safari, as the website name shows up in the system utility for viewing process memory.
I know, that feels wrong somehow, but it's true.
Finally, when using a system WebView, will that save memory if it's opening a separate instance of the system's browser? It must be separate in some ways, if opening an application that uses a WebView doesn't open all your saved tabs from last time the browser was open. (And it's a horrible experience if opening an application does open all the other tabs.)
For example, Slack-the-Electron-app and Slack-the-web-app are fundamentally identical, aside from likely some platform integration features and so on. That means that, likely, a lot of these Electron apps would already work in, for example, a Safari or Edge webview, since the web version has to anyway. I sincerely doubt that they're taking the time to strip out that compatibility, since the only reason to do so would be efficiency and if you're using Electron that's not a priority.
IOW, for many applications, there's a near-100% chance that everything would function with little to no extra work, and for most of the rest it would likely take very little.
Coincidentally, Slack doesn't fully work in Safari or traditional Edge. Video calls only work in Chromium-based browsers, and in the Electron app which is of course also Chromium.
This is actually the thing that finally got me to switch back to Chromium last week, after using Safari and Firefox for the better part of a decade. The Electron app sucks, I don't like switching between browsers for usability reasons, and I need to make Slack calls for work.
More like: A lot of corporate users mandated a specific version of IE and wouldn't allow anything else to be installed.
I have never bought a prebuilt Windows PC, so this is pure speculation, but I am wildly guessing that the dominance of Chrome is because computers are now coming with Chrome preinstalled and configured as the default, and most people don't care, and just stick with the default.
Now the reason everyone uses it is because it's psychologically the new "default", whether it is on the actual system or not. Everybody knows that's just what you do when you get a new computer: you go install Chrome. And the irony is that even now, with Edge being basically the same thing, most people don't bother to re-evaluate that default assumption that "the windows browser is bad". They just use Chrome.
I'm not aware of any Windows machines shipping with Chrome pre-installed. But as soon as you use any website that's owned by Google you get spammed with install links for Chrome.
So yeah, the situation is without doubt much better now. I think people tend to forget (or aren't aware) that Microsoft actively said "there's no more work to be done here" and stopped all progress for 7 years. There's been some progress on the web since 2014, as a point of comparison.
IEDevToolbar, which Firebug was pretty much a clone of, came out a year before Firebug. And it took Firebug years to catch up in feature parity, as far as I remember.
So, firebug didn't make it the dev tool of choice. We all just hated microsoft. And tabbed browsing was great.
I used that IE toolbar setup for years, and it _never_ worked as well as Firebug did.
I have heard that mobile safari can be a bit more unruly than the rest, though it isn't really relevant to the question at hand
At the time, jQuery was a big help in this, especially in hiding the event model mess. Things are a lot better now. Although I do wish we had a strict compatibility-checking layer that'd warn you if you used any feature of the web platform that wasn't supported by everything you wanted to support.
