>
Its okay, I understand I'm getting downvoted for not following along with the groupthink that Apple can't do anything wrong in the GUI departmentI think this "persecution complex" is more groupthink that what you accuse as groupthink. There are tons of discussions on HN, and highly voted comments, about Apple's errors in GUI work (and elsewhere). They just happen to do a better job than 80% of the developers out there.
Furturmore, I disagree with the two basic premises of your comment:
1) Native doesn't mean "let the GUI to Apple". You conflate native with "follows a platform's GUI guidelines religiously".
You can create a great native app, using Cocoa APIs et al, that still looks totally different from Apple's apps. Take for example Paper for iOS. Or Procreate. Or Elements. Or tons of stuff, really.
You don't have to follow the GUI look at all, you can even have your own widgets for stuff. Just don't try using Swing in a Mac app, or some shitty Cocoa port on a Windows app. And let the common behavior of items like dropdowns and text-entry boxes be the same (e.g with regard to keyboard shortcuts).
But for those that do want to "leave the GUI" (well, look) to Apple, it's because it saves them tons of fucking work. Redundunt work of having to implement common stuff for themselves and their app.
2) Second, I don't think "native GUI toolkits/frameworks for each platform are really designed to lock users - and developers - into the platform" makes much sense.
What DEFINES a platform is the very presence of such things (native GUIs/frameworks, etc).
Without those, what you ask amounts to OS landscape where everything is the same generic base, sort of like FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD/etc but also at the desktop level.
What's the sense in having "platforms" for desktop OSes at all, if that's the case?
If you just want one OS to rule them all, for everybody, just ask for that. It makes no sense to want to have different platforms but still be bound to not have unique APIs and frameworks for each.