> Some time ago, maybe in the late 90s and 2000s, native was ahead. It used to look good, it was consistent, and it all actually worked

That's just mythical past, in reality you had the full variety of garbage with basic things broken (hello, blurry native text if poor users decide to adjust screen resolution to match his vision, and text is the most basic of the basics of UI). Only today many of those issues are wrapped in a browsers, so many times more inefficient (though, to be fair, making it harder to mess some of the basics through a concentration of dev efforts on one platform)

> the more apps used native look and feel, the better user experience was across apps

This is especially atrociously deep one, that default look of Windows was ugly and the feel - unergonomic, and user experience doesn't magically become better if you stick to the ugliness. And for important productivity apps it also doesn't become better if you stick to the unergonomic - as, you know, there are two sides in a coin, and "familiarity" isn't the only nor even the most important factor.

> The real reason is: native has nothing to offer.

It offers the same things it always has - the potential to be performant and integrated (with better baseline), just as OS god intended (but OS devil intervened) And the counter here is too shallow

> There’s no technical reason why

There is, bad abstractions that make it harder to be performant is a technical reason for poor performance.

> Web apps can be faster, too, but in practice, nobody cares.

Is just very shallow. "Can" is useless alone, you need to engage with all the other major factors that affect reality, not ignore everything at the level of a theoretical "can"

> What makes you think it’ll be different once the company decides to move to native?

Well, reality? There are literally the same companies with the same apps that were different before switching!