3 ms·
That link says they reduced the download speed, but the actual files remained unchanged.
by ikeboy 11y ago
That link says they reduced the download speed, but the actual files remained unchanged.
- criddell 11y agoI think they were relying on video services being able to detect available bandwidth and alter the stream to fit. Netflix does this, for example. If you have a narrow connection, you're probably going to get 240p video. If the streaming service doesn't do this, you just get a terrible experience (buffering... buffering... buffering...).
- mirimir 11y agoThat's why streaming on bad (narrow, high latency and/or jitter) connections is a bad idea, no? Download in the background, then view, makes much more sense.
- criddell 11y agoI don't think there's one right answer for that. Buffering is a terrible experience everywhere. On my desktop, I'd rather wait to get the best quality video that I can get. On mobile though, I probably prefer for video to start NOW at a lower bitrate if need be. It will save bandwidth, and battery, and time and the quality is probably good enough.
- mirimir 11y agoI'm not a mobile user, so this is probably unworkable. But anyway, why not download to desktop, and then transfer to mobile device? Destroys spontaneity, I know.
- criddell 11y ago> Destroys spontaneity It's exactly that. I'm sitting in a waiting room or the departure gate at the airport flipping through Twitter or Instagram and a click on a video. I don't need that 6 second video to play in 4K. That it runs instantly is the most important quality, IMHO.