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.)

> 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."

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.