What are you disagreeing with? I didn't make an argument, I stated some facts and gave an opinion of the consequences of those actions.
I'm disagreeing with the premise that you have to develop for their platforms and distribute for it. That's not a fact. That's an opinion. While there may be some apps that _couldnt_ operate on the web, 99% of apps don't fall into this.
Facebook. Instagram. WhatsApp. Gmail. Google maps. Pinterest. These can all be done in a mobile friendly way in browser. They're intentionally not done because of "performance" and the fact that apps want deeper access to the device.
I don't want any or those apps getting access to my GPS. Or my files. Or my contacts. Id rather take additional steps to upload a picture, or type in my "from" address rather than auto-GPS.
You're setting your argument up for failure before you even present it when it's foundation is a clear and intentional misinterpretation of someone else's words.
Very, very few apps need to be developed natively.
The vast, vast majority would be better if developed for the browser.
This obviously depends on exactly what you're talking about, I concede there are some specific applications that require it. Maybe _your_ specific app requires in, in which case, _you_ have to live with the trade-off of the gatekeepers.
Mostly, it's a self imposed prison.
I never said anything of the sort, you're again manipulating what was said to give you an opportunity to stand on your soap box. I said Apple and Google control the distribution channel and have an interest in protecting it.
Web Apps are at a distinct disadvantage on both platforms because Apple and Google control the channel to dissuade them from reaching mass adoption.
If anything I said that these actions might actually help Web Apps.