Building apps is hard, period. Many thousands of hours go into making commercial products. Many thousands of hours go into learning how to do so. It isn't something you just stumble upon over night.
Tone the language down a bit ("stupid fanboy"), it is unnecessary and doesn't work to convey your point at all.
An app that shares screens and mouse pointers with simultaneous audio/video transmission is not the same kind of cross-platform undertaking as a to-do app.
Seems to me that they know their target market (large tech shops with lots of devs on macos) and preferred to optimize for resource usage and user experience by going native. For another company, this could very well be the wrong choice, but they should look at the numbers and decide what makes sense for them.
This. I am currently making a productivity app and I had to actively unbias myself from the hackernews/prosumer mentality that I must write independent apps for at least 3 operating systems/GUI systems, and 2 more if I want to go mobile.
It's a shame that interoperability has been an anti-priority from the OS providers (mainly MS, Apple and Google - if there was any standard Linux would follow). Even more sad is that the popular opinion is blaming developers for the situation.