5 ms·

In web contexts, we usually shoot for sub 1MB (ideally ~250kb for static sites). The main reason is usually just optimizing for mobile experiences. People expec

In web contexts, we usually shoot for sub 1MB (ideally ~250kb for static sites). The main reason is usually just optimizing for mobile experiences. People expect to wait a while to download a 200MB app, but if you have to wait 5s for a webpage you’re very likely to click away. Of course it’s partially a function of your target audience. Notion and Retool (for example) are able to ship massive multi megabyte bundles because they’re productivity apps targeted mostly towards people with desktops and high speed internet connections. If HN were to ship a 15MB bundle it’d be virtually unusable on mobile for a lot of people (myself included, and I live in Seattle!).

andreygrehov 5y ago
I agree. I'm all for static, low-size websites and that is something I always strive for. But, the internet speed keeps improving. 5MB app won't take 5s to load these days. 1 megabit-per-second connection needs 8 seconds to load 1MB. Most internet providers offer 300Mbit/s minimum ($39/month). But even with 50Mbit/s channel, it'll only take 0.8s to load 5MB.
- mattnewton 5y ago
  It very well might depending on the audience and the percentile you target. 90th percentile times show that those larger speeds are not consistent, often showing a bifurcated distribution where the tail is experiencing loss / latency that compounds the more request and the larger they are. Of course if the development benefits for your team outweigh it, it makes sense to do it. Just mean to say advertised cellphone connection speeds are not a reliable benchmark to hit.
- hbn 5y ago
  Not everyone has access to all options from internet providers. There's people on slow, satellite internet. Hell, there's still a non-negligible amount of people still using dial-up in the US. https://www.statista.com/statistics/185532/us-household-dial-up-internet-connection-usage-by-state-2009/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/185532/us-household-dial... (URL says 2009, but it was updated with statistics for 2019)
- freedomben 5y ago
  When I moved away from Alaska a couple of years ago, the fastest speed available to me was 768k. sites with several mb were virtually unusable, and so many of the would refresh or ajax recklessly as though bandwidth were huge and infinite. much of the modern web was completely unusable.

andreygrehov 5y ago

I agree. I'm all for static, low-size websites and that is something I always strive for. But, the internet speed keeps improving. 5MB app won't take 5s to load these days. 1 megabit-per-second connection needs 8 seconds to load 1MB. Most internet providers offer 300Mbit/s minimum ($39/month). But even with 50Mbit/s channel, it'll only take 0.8s to load 5MB.

mattnewton 5y ago
It very well might depending on the audience and the percentile you target. 90th percentile times show that those larger speeds are not consistent, often showing a bifurcated distribution where the tail is experiencing loss / latency that compounds the more request and the larger they are. Of course if the development benefits for your team outweigh it, it makes sense to do it. Just mean to say advertised cellphone connection speeds are not a reliable benchmark to hit.
hbn 5y ago
Not everyone has access to all options from internet providers. There's people on slow, satellite internet. Hell, there's still a non-negligible amount of people still using dial-up in the US. https://www.statista.com/statistics/185532/us-household-dial-up-internet-connection-usage-by-state-2009/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/185532/us-household-dial... (URL says 2009, but it was updated with statistics for 2019)
freedomben 5y ago
When I moved away from Alaska a couple of years ago, the fastest speed available to me was 768k. sites with several mb were virtually unusable, and so many of the would refresh or ajax recklessly as though bandwidth were huge and infinite. much of the modern web was completely unusable.