Electron has always been about shipping cross-platform apps quickly, at the cost of higher memory usage and potentially worse performance. With or without LLMs, its core value proposition remains the same. LLMs simply amplify the framework’s existing strengths.
Raycast, originally a native macOS launcher, recently released v2 using a hybrid architecture. It’s not Electron, but it follows a similar approach to Spotify’s desktop app, using web technologies inside a native shell.
The memory usage is still pretty significant. It’s using around 350–450 MB at idle and can sometimes reach 1–2 GB depending on the workload. The upside is that they can now share most of their code across macOS and Windows and evolve beyond being just an app launcher.
It’s always been about trade-offs, and LLMs don’t fundamentally change that.
LLMs do change the tradeoff if you can now ship cross platform apps quickly, without electron.
GPUI is one example: some of the downsides of electron (UI is not native), but it solves memory and performance side, and shared codebase.
Just writing native apps because LLMs makes it cheaper is the other option. Shopify did this after years of react native.
> you can now ship cross platform apps quickly, without electron.
The opposite is also true. My argument is that you can also ship Electron apps with more features more quickly with LLMs.
You still have a finite token budget. With native apps, you have to split those tokens across multiple platforms, whereas with Electron, you can reuse most of the code.
Big companies have been going back and forth between native and cross-platform approaches even before LLMs. They generally have the resources (humans, tokens, compute) that small and medium-sized companies don’t have. So I’d take their rationale with a grain of salt.
Why assume finite token budgets? Scaling 2x tokens isn’t a major jump if it brings quality.
Also the GPUI approach is still finite tokens, just better stack.