>My point is, "webpage" has evolved the same way as mobile phones, AAA games and buildings - it has more content and features compared to 10 years ago. And ther

>My point is, "webpage" has evolved the same way as mobile phones, AAA games and buildings - it has more content and features compared to 10 years ago. And there is really no reason or need to making it faster than it is right now (2-3 seconds is a comfortable waiting time for most people). What features? I don't know anything substantive a site can deliver to me today that it was not capable of 10 years ago. The last major advance in functionality was probably AJAX, but that doesn't inherently require huge slowdowns and was around more than 10 years ago. The rest of your comparisons are dubious: >Time taken to do a bank transfer is now 2-3 seconds of bank website load and a few clicks (still much to improve on) instead of physically visiting a branch / ATM. This is the same class of argument as saying that (per Scott Adams), "yeah 40 mph may seems like a bad top speed for a sports car, but you have to compare it hopping". (Or the sports cars of 1910). Yes, bank sites are faster than going to ATM. Are they faster than bank sites 20 years ago? Not in my experience. >Time taken to start editing a word document is now 2-3 seconds of Google Drive load instead of hours of MS Office Word installation. Also not comparable: you pay the installation MS Word time-cost once, and then all future ones are near instant. (Also applies to your Skype installation example.)