The correct thing to use is AppKit on OS X, WPF on Windows, GTK+ on Gnome, and Qt on KDE. Yes, this requires more code, but it results in a much, much better experience. As an OS X user, it's so obvious when an app isn't properly using AppKit.
Firefox has traditionally not been very popular on Mac for this very reason. They've gotten better at imitating OS X slightly, but even today it's still out of the question for me (and I suspect many Mac users) to use Firefox. It feels really awful to use. Whilst Chrome and Safari have nice native scrolling, rubber banding and smooth zooming, just like any other native app, Firefox feels jarring. It only just supports gestures (there's no nice animation like in Safari or Chrome).
My day-to-day browser is Safari. Not because it's faster or technically better (it really isn't) but because it's fully native and integrates properly with the system, e.g. it integrates properly with the downloads folder (showing the progress bar on the file and on the folder icon) and it looks and feels like any other Mac app. Chrome may be faster, Firefox may be more extensible - but I choose Safari because it works properly with the OS.
I really love Mozilla and I would love to use Firefox. I really hope they go with a OS-specific native shell - although I suspect they'll go with building the UI in HTML/CSS. But if they do, there's a good chance I'll switch.
> The correct thing to use is AppKit on OS X, WPF on Windows, GTK+ on Gnome, and Qt on KDE.
WHAT?! Personally, being asked to rewrite the UI for X different native platforms is rage-inducing.
Some people who write their apps in Web technologies have done native UIs and are sick of the duplicated effort. ;)
I really, really don't think that is the case.
(also, what happened to the edit link? "UKs" was obviously supposed to be "UIs" above.)
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."
My most-used GUI apps are Chrome, Visual Studio, Ableton Live, and Photoshop. All of them have heavily customized user interfaces. Their custom controls and tiling/layout systems are tailored to the application domain. Except for Chrome, these are "do your life's work" applications. They should aim for maximum productivity, even if it makes the application harder to use. I think they would suffer if they tried to "look native".
Most everything else is done in web apps these days. Users don't seem to have a problem dealing with different button CSS in different web apps.
Certain things, like the "open file" dialog, really suffer if they look non-native. But I think users don't care about most other cases.
As an aside, it's the no. 1 reason I don't use Atom: An ugly, slow UI that doesn't render native elements.
So no, it's not indefensible. I think your conspirator's OP comment "As a non-OSX user, I don't care about your UX" is more vain.
Sure it's vain. We all have personal priorities. People suggesting that Mozilla spend time developing the perfect OS X product are expressing their priorities as well.
I could say that I'm a BeOS user and I really think that Firefox should have a fully-integrated native UX because the way a product looks and works is important. But no one cares about BeOS UX because they're vain.
It looks like OS X users are the only ones who really care. Windows users have been dealing with non-standard UIs since tabs first stopped being MDI, and, comparing Chrome's adoption with how it looks, they're mostly fine with them. Linux users are mostly just straight-up crazy and Firefox is fine for them. Smartphone users have seen more non-standard than standard UIs and it doesn't seem to have been a problem for the Facebook app. The question is then is it worth caring as much about OS X UI, or is it more useful to make a better product for the 80+% of users who don't use OS X?
User experience is important. Dismissing that aspect as "animations [that] aren't as nice" misses an important point - things like animation, consistency with the host system, integration with platform features and so on are really very important to the quality of an app.
Technical capability is also important, obviously. It's why I use Firefox and when building web projects on the Mac - best feature set. But I use Safari instead for day-to-day browsing, because of things like better scrolling and zooming, and better integration with platform services.
I do think the way a product looks and works is important, and developers who dismiss that are why we have so many awful UIs out in public.
I agree user experience is important, but experience is so much more than simple aesthetics.
I'm not saying they're totally unimportant, which is why I included the qualifying clause about "undue hardship", but I have no respect for users that will put themselves at a functional disadvantage so that their experience can be "prettier" (aka "more native"). These people have their subculture, called "Apple", and frankly, I want as little to do with it as possible. Prioritizing glitz above function shows serious problems in critical thinking.
If we can make an application look better, cool, we should add that to the list somewhere. I'm not opposed to that. I strongly disagree that this should be anywhere near the primary criterion used to judge an application's value.
Edited to add: And I disagree with them, however I'm downvoting to show disagreement is something that HN has always been against, to it's credit.
I'll tell you what I can't comprehend – people who apparently find it difficult to accept that other people have differing priorities to them, and aren't mentally subnormal as a result.
And, I'd argue, Firefox is far, far, far from "technically superior" on any number of axes, regardless.
k-melon for windows http://kmeleonbrowser.org/
I don't really care if an application is native or not, Firefox works great for me on Os X and I really appreciate I can run the same browser on all platforms I have to use or developer for.
Although your point isn't lost. In 2015 Mozilla probably won't release a Motif build for the WindowMaker users.