3 ms·
You are not wrong - in reality we have had a tiered internet for years now, where big sites pay for faster transfers over better routes. However nothing says y
by AndrewStephens 7y ago
You are not wrong - in reality we have had a tiered internet for years now, where big sites pay for faster transfers over better routes.
However nothing says you actually have to use these fancy services. Everyone wants a quick loading site but the drawback of an extra 100ms are minimal. Almost everyone should be more concerned with good site design and minimizing client-side dependencies if they want good performance.
- save_ferris 7y agoIt's important to remember that with the death of net neutrality in the US, this may not be the case forever.
- WhiteOwlLion 7y agoWhy would you say extra 100ms is a minimal drawback? Google obsesses over load time because faster load time means more ad dollars generated. 700ms vs 800ms is the difference between acceptable and a slow loading web site.
- skybrian 7y agoIt matters for websites, but only after fixing many other problems with performance and usability. For an individual user, it doesn't matter to me if I use a website a bit less because it's a little slower. That might even be an improvement, since I was probably using the Internet too much anyway.
- zzzcpan 7y ago> It matters for websites, but only after fixing many other problems with performance and usability. Or does it? Once you fix major performance, usability problems and it starts to feel fast - other efforts become kind of pointless and may even become sources of performance, usability problems themselves.
- vbezhenar 7y agohttps://www.google.com/ https://www.google.com/ has 2.76s load time for me. Gmail 6.33s. Amazon 1.41s. Aliexpress 2.69s. Seems like entire Internet is slow?