> so your diversity will basically be Chrome & WebKit which is what you have anyway
Right now many web apps can brush off doing QA in Safari (and Firefox for that matter). Most regular websites don't have issues, but most of those don't need any vendor-specific fixes in the first place. I've used multiple complex web apps that just break unceremoniously unless you're using Chrome.
If web apps that are complex enough to warrant a desktop app are forced to support Safari, that lifts awareness for the entire web/JS ecosystem. That's a win, if it plays out that way.
> having all the fun of web development against multiple browsers
The difficulty here has gone sharply down since all major browsers are evergreen now (and IE is all-but-gone). Not to mention the availability of tooling like Babel.
> Right now many web apps can brush off doing QA in Safari (and Firefox for that matter). Most regular websites don't have issues, but most of those don't need any vendor-specific fixes in the first place. I've used multiple complex web apps that just break unceremoniously unless you're using Chrome.
There's billions of active iPhones out there & they ALL use WebKit for webviews as no other browser engine is allowed for iOS apps. MacOS desktop apps are a fraction of that number of users & web view apps are a fraction of that. I just I don't follow this reasoning unless you're saying that this might gain traction across developers who might go & fix the bugs. That might help WebKit (although questionable). It's never going to help Firefox which is the sole remaining engine that doesn't have a strategic play to try to encourage compatibility.
> The difficulty here has gone sharply down since all major browsers are evergreen now (and IE is all-but-gone). Not to mention the availability of tooling like Babel.
If that were actually true, would you be concerning yourself with getting devs to do more QA on Safari or Firefox?
The truth is that it's still hard to write web apps cross-browser and will likely remain hard indefinitely as long as there are > 1 web engines. The point of the web was to make you OS agnostic (ironically recreating the same pattern in desktop development of 2 or 3 major engines as with 2 or 3 major OSes) but with this tech you're combining both dealing with the browser-specific issues & OS-specific issues. Additionally, you're now not only having to maintain compatibility across 3 engines, but all the various versions popular versions of the OS distribution will have shipped. I really struggle to see the value of this approach if I'm concerned with shipping the app & lowering my development costs & increasing velocity to shipping useful features.
Right now many web apps can brush off doing QA in Safari (and Firefox for that matter). Most regular websites don't have issues, but most of those don't need any vendor-specific fixes in the first place. I've used multiple complex web apps that just break unceremoniously unless you're using Chrome.
If web apps that are complex enough to warrant a desktop app are forced to support Safari, that lifts awareness for the entire web/JS ecosystem. That's a win, if it plays out that way.
> having all the fun of web development against multiple browsers
The difficulty here has gone sharply down since all major browsers are evergreen now (and IE is all-but-gone). Not to mention the availability of tooling like Babel.