> You can argue that 'native is better' or not, but really? Do we have to fuss around with wording and pretend there's some magical alternative definition of wh

> You can argue that 'native is better' or not, but really? Do we have to fuss around with wording and pretend there's some magical alternative definition of what native means, in order for us to cool and be writing 'native' apps? The guy is running a business. The word native doesn't make him "feel cool", it's a valuable marketing term that means little more to consumers than "fast". Do consumers care how fast apps are designed? Whether performance gains are thanks to the thought given to the content delivery and deployment vs the programming language it was written in? They couldn't care less! Who are we protecting by steering clear of the "rabbit hole"? I'll concede that terms like web native are clearer than using native as a catch-all term. But I cosign wholeheartedly on defining native as an app's proximity to the full power of its platform. Whether that's web, iOS, Android. etc. Put the focus on the platforms. When used to their full potential, how do they stack up on performance? Platforms that compete on improving user perceptions of app performance are healthy platforms. This isn't bad behavior, it's an attempt to have a conversation that you are ending rather abruptly.