3 ms·
One good reason, which I think may still have an impact in long-run is bandwidth. At office or home on your cable/DSL/whatever you really don't care about band
by donohoe 11y ago
One good reason, which I think may still have an impact in long-run is bandwidth.
At office or home on your cable/DSL/whatever you really don't care about bandwidth.
However on mobile, blocking ads has a bigger impact beyond aesthetics and basic UX
* Pages load much much faster
* Mobile users typically have data-plans with limits
I have an old unlimited plan with AT&T. I've just installed the ad-blocker from Mozilla. Previously when I had Peace I say my data usage drop by 30% (that I can account for. It may be higher). I typically use 3.2GB a month. It was down to 1.8GB (again, there are other factors)
- acdha 11y agoYou're definitely right to point at bandwidth, particularly since at least in the United States the major carriers have been pushing customers back to paid plans. A closely-related issue is the nature of the content: it would be one thing if ads/trackers were just image content but a lot of them ship huge amounts of poorly-written JavaScript and CSS, usually marked as uncacheable or with a short TTL. I'm not talking about fly-by-night operators, either, but places like Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. which have good web performance teams who are apparently strictly prohibited from talking to the ad / tracking / widget groups. All of that extra bloat has a huge performance impact to begin with but it also dramatically amplifies any network delays. That means that most of the people who read a piece about blockers and try one are likely to notice a big performance win and that initial impression will stick with them for a long time.