I'd turn the question around: what's the evidence they want well-crafted apps developed with native SDKs or otherwise?
I don't think there is anything like evidence (in the scientific sense) for either position.
I do think the ratio of free to free+IAP to up-front-purchase apps supports my contention rather than the other--people get what they pay for, and they apparently don't want to pay very much for apps. To my mind, this means they don't want to pay for the development effort required to sustain well-crafted apps (or else they believe the development effort required to be either less than what it really is or else that it's overpriced).
This is of course a generalization; as such there are exceptions.
Whether or not people want to pay for apps or not has nothing to do with whether they desire polished apps. Most people don't know a thing about development and the effort required to create a good app, but do seem to appreciate quality.
I don't have good data on this either, but from personal experience here these apps have spread like very quickly through my circle of (iPhone-using) friends:
Square
Instagram
Clear
Snapchat
Letterpress
These apps all have something in common, which is that their creators clearly put a lot of care into their products. Most of them still manage to be free, except for Clear.
During the Apple Maps debacle, none of my friends used Google's web app, but many downloaded the native app as soon as it was available.
I really don't understand how you can think that "App consumers aren't interested in well-crafted apps." If you're right, then how do you explain the success of Apple and the developer community surrounding Apple?
Apple's demographic and target market consists primarily of affluent consumers (high discretionary income) who have a history of spending more than the average consumer for products without regard to quality or functionality. They are not representative of "most consumers" by any measure.
I mostly agreed with you until "without regard for quality or functionality." Either way, apps are extremely inexpensive for the effort put into them compared to say, a cup of coffee. There are also a lot of free or ad-supported apps, which means that price is likely not the main differentiator between two apps. And if that's true, then what else can you use to evaluate an app but its usability?
Do you yourself value cheap and "disposable" apps more than well-crafted ones?
I don't think there is anything like evidence (in the scientific sense) for either position.
I do think the ratio of free to free+IAP to up-front-purchase apps supports my contention rather than the other--people get what they pay for, and they apparently don't want to pay very much for apps. To my mind, this means they don't want to pay for the development effort required to sustain well-crafted apps (or else they believe the development effort required to be either less than what it really is or else that it's overpriced).
This is of course a generalization; as such there are exceptions.