No, it takes quite a bit more to do the same thing. You need a canvas, you need font support, you need to tinker with window handling, you need a compiler and an environment for it to run in and you need to assemble all these parts to get a binary that writes "Hello world!" in a window.
That's my point. And one benefit with browser bound development is that you can do all this with a simple text editor and the "Reload" button to review the result.
I'm sure this is some ways away from the goal of HTML5.
But as a suggestion, I'd venture to guess that streaming video will use the same native support libraries no matter if you use GTK or HTML5 for the decoding. Then you need to pay for parsing the HTML document once and then it's pretty much the same CPU cost.
You wrote the following: But why? How many people know C compared to HTML5? I don't see how implementing even simple applications in HTML5/JavaScript is easier than in C/C++. This sounds very much as such a statement. But what do I know.
That's an interesting extra requirement you just added. Why is that a given?
Or it's a way to hide most of the ugly stuff via abstraction and supply most of the same functionality using the browser/rendering engine.
If this is your main argument, I do have to wonder why you ventured into arguments about how development would be done and how porting to other platforms was unlikely.
And even if you're right: how does this nullify the usefulness of HTML5?