I suppose you don't, at least not as a user. But behind app availability, which is a concern for you, is this whole debate about cross-platform apps. It's likely that the only way you get to continue using your preferred platform and some new app/piece of hardware is if the developers use a cross-platform toolkit.
When releasing software, macOS is a small tertiary concern for me at best, behind Linux (for myself), Windows and mobile platforms. So if you care about app availability, you indirectly care about cross-platform toolkits.
This is going to sound a lot worse than I intend it to. But why would users care about a little indy app that’s a bad port with a non native UI when they have the choice of major, popular, commercial apps from the major players?
Well, maybe they shouldn't. Those popular apps are likely to be better just by virtue of being better funded. But if there were apps from the major players for every usecase, all programmers would be working for Adobe-sized corporations. Thankfully, that's not the world we live in.
Recently I've looked at apps for running a "flat owners' association" in the Czech Republic. The general feeling I got was that maybe one was at least approaching intuitive and good looking design. Using a cross-platform UI toolkit wouldn't hurt these apps one bit.
Besides, the only ones that supported macOS at all were web apps, the epitome of non-native. So if a non-programmer wants to manage such an association on a Mac, their only options are cross-platform apps or a spreadsheet, proving my point.
When releasing software, macOS is a small tertiary concern for me at best, behind Linux (for myself), Windows and mobile platforms. So if you care about app availability, you indirectly care about cross-platform toolkits.