Comparing a web-based software that runs on your own computer vs. installing a (say native) software and frequently updating, isn't it interesting that the former is faster to do? When using a web-based software to ru on your own machine, you are effectively, momentarily, installing it and are able to uninstall by clearing the cache.
This is just a testament to the maturity of the platform, and the work that has gone into the portable engine segment.
Targeting Chrome targets all of the platforms, and the machines and platform is "fast enough" to do the job without having to dig deep into specific nature of the platforms.
It also leverages, I'm assuming, the deep knowledge the developer has of doing other things for the browser platform.
They probably could have targeted some other portable GUI toolkit, but this was more familiar. It may well be an even smoother experience than using other cross platform GUI toolkits, plus, of course, the platform is free.
Finally, distribution is familiar and likely easier, it's truly cross platform (no need to build executable on the individual platforms, even if its all from the same source base), etc.
No bundling, no signing, no app stores. Just a URL shared in a tweet and you're on your way. If it was OSS, it could be parked on a Github page for all eternity.
Overall, it's a really attractive platform for developers, just not yet fully embraced I think, as client based applications I mean.
Comparing a web-based software that runs on your own computer vs. installing a (say native) software and frequently updating, isn't it interesting that the former is faster to do? When using a web-based software to ru on your own machine, you are effectively, momentarily, installing it and are able to uninstall by clearing the cache.