Ah, but you don't waste time, that's the whole point of the idea. You just repackage your existing web app and distribute it as a "native" app, no effort required. You also have a cross-platform application with no extra work (the auld "Write once, run anywhere" slogan), and can use web developers instead of people who know QT/Java/what have you.

Then the user can run your chat/music/text editor in the background, have it appear in the taskbar, and start boot, at the cost of requiring a few gigabytes of RAM and 25% CPU utilization while idling.

Personally I'd rather have Progressive Web Apps but for some reason, those are still in an awkward stage.

> and can use web developers instead of people who know QT/Java/what have you.

Is that supposed to be an advantage? ;)

But packaging and distributing take a non-zero amount of time.

And none of those "benefits" have any advantage over running the web app in its own window.

It's a hack to use cheap web developers to check off the "standalone app" checkbox.

> I honestly don't know why people waste time building Electron apps.

Yes you do. Because some people understand UI design and know how to program in javascript/html/css and have a need to make a desktop app.

For example, a small budget indie startup has enough to make ONE version of their app to get funding. They can use JS with the same budget and launch on Web, PC, Mac, Linux, iOS and Android instead of just making a single Windows native app.

There is 100% a place for electron. You can argue that after funding they should convert to native, sure. But if you're reading HN you are definitely smart enough to know why a lot of us use electron :)

tldr; Smart use of electron is NOT for the end user. It's for the developer.

And my point is that Electron isn't fooling anybody, so you're better off just launching on Web, because that's what you're really doing anyway.