“I suspect that this *new* desktop emulation layer consumes less resources than Windows 7 Ultimate for instance”

Sure, but windows is an entire OS. The windows GUI APIs definitely use very little resources compared to a full web renderer. But we’ll just through hardware at it and all will be well ;).

The run-anywhere aspect is probably the biggest and most exciting benefit. Part of the reason the web is now achieving what so many desktop languages and tool kits have failed to do so far is that the web has always been sandboxed. There’s little access to anything on the system that could cause cross-platform issues. It sounds like many of these interactions are being addressed with web workers, sockets, and local storage. And I think I heard some talk of using web sockets to interact with the file system. But there are still many (maybe edge-case for most people) interactions that won’t be possible. So there’s the question of where to draw the line on capabilities. For now that’s easy as web applications are zero install and shouldn’t have that much access to the system. As soon as they can be installed developers are going to try for more complicated interactions and will end up limiting compatibility. And that can be basic things, like relying on a certain windows command line utility to be present on the system. But of course it’s all about how you use your tools.

“On one hand, it’s pretty absurd that a simple document renderer has become this monster runtime. ” – and who would have thought we would have gone from this (http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2007/Talks/0508-query-log-privacy/phone-booth-red.jpg) to this (http://river.webblogg.se/images/2008/ericsson_hotline450combi_1206637992_860903.jpg) to this (http://cdn.mos.techradar.com//classifications/gadgets/phones/mobile-phones/iPhone/iphone4_2up_front_side-728-75.jpg)… ;o)… back when browsers were created thats all people needed/wanted…

I think that’s the point: do we really need another desktop emulation layer? Especially one that uses so much of your system resources before it even does anything useful.

On one hand, it’s pretty absurd that a simple document renderer has become this monster runtime. On the other, it does have an advantage over current technologies like Swing. Accessibility to developers. Which tends to be a bad thing (check out the source to any VB Script application…), but is also good in that the thing that is accessibility is not just “recreating that which already exists,” it’s the ability to create highly interactive things in a space where it’s currently difficult. And there’s this derogatory term, “programmer art.” But now all these great designers making these fantastic-looking-and-behaving things for the internet can possibly one day do the same for the desktop. Yet the overall perceived quality of desktop apps will most likely tank, because now all the worst programmers and non-programmers can make basic programs that use 80MB of ram and have a horrible user experience. Just as how everyone assumes that VB Script (or PHP, or JavaScript, or …) sucks because so many non-programmers use them, HTML5 on the desktop could end up being a tragedy of the commons.

I would say…

What’s the environment in which the application runs? Is it really a browser, or just another runtime in the OS? What’s the difference between a browser running a JavaScript App and a JRE running a Swing app (Swing is not native – it is another desktop emulation)? – Perhaps I’m being one of those “Architecture Astronauts”.

I think the line has (or more likely, always was) blurred for those who aren’t technology professionals. There’s not much difference between clicking on an icon to open a desktop application versus clicking on an icon that launches a browser and loads a web application. Do most users really care that there’s a distinction between a desktop app and a web app? I don’t think so, or are they really concerned with getting the job done quickly and efficiently (and hopefully enjoying the process)?

@nataxia – If you can’t be first to market, be the best. I’m sure the business owner(s) of ExtensionFM will have done market research into whether the product is viable or not and any legalities associated with that product space – if they haven’t then it will likely fail.

I would *guess* there is a market for this type of product/service as Marketing and PR companies are using blogs/websites to promote Artists and their music – (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/feb/11/google-deletes-music-blogs).

I’m not sure a different UI would actually serve the music listener well…

Instead of just emulating the existing interfaces on to the web there should be an entirely new interface developed that puts the interests of the user first.

Perhaps this point might be made: if developers using html5, extensions, etc. only recreate existing user interfaces, software ideas, and so on, there has been something short of progress made. This is a music player. Is there a large market for those who have been *dying* to play mp3′s they find on webpages? When you think about that question, do you come up with other disruptive music distribution trends (and related lawsuits) which have occupied the popular consciousness since around the time Spolsky wrote his article? Can I type the name of a song and listen to it? HTML5 (only running in Chrome, no less) does not anesthetize consumer desire.