2 ms·
> They just don't seem to employ them to actually make user-facing products. it's fine if the high-level public-speaking folks aren't doing this, but the probl
by leeoniya 9y ago
> They just don't seem to employ them to actually make user-facing products.
it's fine if the high-level public-speaking folks aren't doing this, but the problem is that no one seems to be doing it.
anyone can open up the DevTools network panel during a Gmail load, then look at the timings, payloads and generated DOM to see that it's almost entirely absolute shit by Google's own standards, even in Chrome on a fast desktop; they still use MochiKit ffs. there are at least several hundred engineers here on HN that can rewrite the Gmail UI to be "blazing fast" without gutting features and would still work great even on old phones still running Android 4.4.4 (with latest Chrome).
obviously Google knows all of this, they just don't care because there's no measurable ROI in a faster free Gmail compared to getting people to host their juicy AMP content on Google's servers. "It's what the users want" is a half-truth optimized for maximum PR value; a bit like "Don't be evil".
- DamonHD 9y agoAlmost all the complaints on technical site performance I get from tools such as PageSpeed Insights and WebpageTest are indeed about Google's stuff, not mine, and as far as I can tell entirely unnecessarily. Eg leaving at least some of their own static site-furniture graphics not fully minimised and not cacheable? Likewise the CSS. I keep removing Google stuff from my properties because it outweighs my stuff by typically 10:1, again entirely unnecessarily AFAIK!
- roywiggins 9y agoAnd Inbox is even worse. It's fine on a modern beefy desktop but brings my slightly anemic ye olde Linux box to a standstill, whereas GMail is still basically fine.