Why would someone want to do all that instead of paying this company $30/month? There are lots of people who's jobs are spent in a web browser. Your examples aren't selling a solution to a problem–they are just tools. Which is fine and great for people who need them, but I simply wanted a faster browser, I'd rather use a service that is dedicated to that purpose.
i think the main selling point is the always-on browser, not a faster browser. i dont know what demand there is for faster browsers, if speed was a big deal i think most web apps would have moved to native, but almost none of them do. People who use beefy web apps are likely capable of setting up their own server which could double as a terabyte of remote storage, file sharing, any self-hosted app really.
I m sure the makers have done their research and found $30/month is the optimal price of a browser of a browser. Surely a lot of businesses will be convinced it's worth the money because $bigCorp uses it as well, and cargo cults work, I'm just pointing out what money can buy at that price point.
Then someone might figure that they can rent servers for $30 /mo and sell 10 remote desktop subscriptions on it.
The BBC loses an additional 10% of users for every extra second it takes for its site to load. And when Yahoo! reduced its page load time by just 0.4 seconds, traffic increased by 9%
1 second delay reduces customer satisfaction by 16%
The longer a webpage takes to load, the more its bounce rate will skyrocket.
