4 ms·

I wonder if these people in remote places, who had to wait two minute to download a 100KB page, were really able to use the now-loadable page to actually watch

I wonder if these people in remote places, who had to wait two minute to download a 100KB page, were really able to use the now-loadable page to actually watch the video on the page? I wonder how much data per second is required to view a YouTube video at the lowest quality setting?

dmw_ng 4y ago
I love this story. The moral is not that folk in Siberia could now watch video, but that a whole chunk of the distribution lying between "fast US fiber" and "siberian 2.4kbps wet string" had their experience dramatically shifted to the left, enough so that new outliers impacted the average. Even after noting the lesson about the limitations of reliance on averages, still it skipped over this key element. I remember the YouTube feather opt-in being spread by word of mouth at the time by folk in the tech community on fast connections. People really care about this stuff and the only reliable way to know is by engaging them directly.
- blowski 4y ago
  It seems like lots of people who didn't have low bandwidth so previously used YouTube anyway, switched to using Feather because the page was smaller by being focused more narrowly on their needs. By the sounds of it, though, it was a net loss for Google, which is why the page is still so big. Much of the code might have been irrelevant (even harmful) for the end user, but was necessary for Google's business model. So a side-learning ignored by the article is that there are more types of stakeholder than just the end users, especially in applications that are free (as in beer) at the point of use. And more stakeholders means more complex solutions. And more complex solutions typically mean more code and bigger pages.
chrismorgan 4y ago
> I wonder how much data per second is required to view a YouTube video at the lowest quality setting? It depends a lot on the content. The example I’m about to show comes to about 114kbps (14.25KB/s). You can inspect this sort of thing with tools like yt-dlp (the superior fork of the probably-better-known youtube-dl). Here’s one example from a well-known music video: $ yt-dlp -F 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ' [youtube] dQw4w9WgXcQ: Downloading webpage [youtube] dQw4w9WgXcQ: Downloading android player API JSON [info] Available formats for dQw4w9WgXcQ: ID EXT RESOLUTION FPS │ FILESIZE TBR PROTO │ VCODEC VBR ACODEC ABR ASR MORE INFO ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── sb2 mhtml 48x27 0 │ mhtml │ images storyboard sb1 mhtml 80x45 1 │ mhtml │ images storyboard sb0 mhtml 160x90 1 │ mhtml │ images storyboard 139 m4a audio only │ 1.23MiB 49k https │ audio only mp4a.40.5 49k 22k low, m4a_dash 249 webm audio only │ 1.18MiB 46k https │ audio only opus 46k 48k low, webm_dash 250 webm audio only │ 1.55MiB 61k https │ audio only opus 61k 48k low, webm_dash 140 m4a audio only │ 3.27MiB 130k https │ audio only mp4a.40.2 130k 44k medium, m4a_dash 251 webm audio only │ 3.28MiB 130k https │ audio only opus 130k 48k medium, webm_dash 17 3gp 176x144 6 │ 1.97MiB 78k https │ mp4v.20.3 78k mp4a.40.2 0k 22k 144p 394 mp4 256x144 25 │ 1.71MiB 68k https │ av01.0.00M.08 68k video only 144p, mp4_dash 160 mp4 256x144 25 │ 1.82MiB 72k https │ avc1.4d400c 72k video only 144p, mp4_dash 278 webm 256x144 25 │ 2.27MiB 90k https │ vp9 90k video only 144p, webm_dash 395 mp4 426x240 25 │ 3.37MiB 134k https │ av01.0.00M.08 134k video only 240p, mp4_dash 133 mp4 426x240 25 │ 2.96MiB 117k https │ avc1.4d4015 117k video only 240p, mp4_dash 242 webm 426x240 25 │ 4.02MiB 159k https │ vp9 159k video only 240p, webm_dash 396 mp4 640x360 25 │ 6.57MiB 260k https │ av01.0.01M.08 260k video only 360p, mp4_dash 134 mp4 640x360 25 │ 5.55MiB 220k https │ avc1.4d401e 220k video only 360p, mp4_dash 18 mp4 640x360 25 │ 15.04MiB 595k https │ avc1.42001E 595k mp4a.40.2 0k 48k 360p 243 webm 640x360 25 │ 6.93MiB 274k https │ vp9 274k video only 360p, webm_dash 397 mp4 854x480 25 │ 11.45MiB 453k https │ av01.0.04M.08 453k video only 480p, mp4_dash 135 mp4 854x480 25 │ 8.52MiB 337k https │ avc1.4d401e 337k video only 480p, mp4_dash 244 webm 854x480 25 │ 10.04MiB 397k https │ vp9 397k video only 480p, webm_dash 22 mp4 1280x720 25 │ ~66.22MiB 2559k https │ avc1.64001F 2559k mp4a.40.2 0k 44k 720p 398 mp4 1280x720 25 │ 23.71MiB 938k https │ av01.0.05M.08 938k video only 720p, mp4_dash 136 mp4 1280x720 25 │ 16.56MiB 655k https │ avc1.4d401f 655k video only 720p, mp4_dash 247 webm 1280x720 25 │ 16.97MiB 671k https │ vp9 671k video only 720p, webm_dash 399 mp4 1920x1080 25 │ 45.16MiB 1786k https │ av01.0.08M.08 1786k video only 1080p, mp4_dash 137 mp4 1920x1080 25 │ 89.66MiB 3547k https │ avc1.640028 3547k video only 1080p, mp4_dash So the audio for that 3:32 video is around 1.2MB at the lower quality (format 249, 46kbps), and the video starts at about 1.7MB (format 394, 68kbps). Cumulatively that’s 114kbps. Well, there’s also the 3gp form where you can appreciate the entire thing at 6fps for under 2MB. Given the size, it’s pretty tolerable, really, and a fun curio if nothing else. (The source article speaks of 100KB taking 2 minutes, which corresponds to 6.7kbps, which is extraordinarily slow. Well, at that rate it would take you an hour to load the 3MB of the video in this example, though experience suggests that at those speeds other stuff is extremely likely to clog things up further. But then, maybe that clogging is already taken into account.)
kccqzy 4y ago
Tens of kilobytes per second, at the lowest 144p setting.

dmw_ng 4y ago

I love this story. The moral is not that folk in Siberia could now watch video, but that a whole chunk of the distribution lying between "fast US fiber" and "siberian 2.4kbps wet string" had their experience dramatically shifted to the left, enough so that new outliers impacted the average. Even after noting the lesson about the limitations of reliance on averages, still it skipped over this key element. I remember the YouTube feather opt-in being spread by word of mouth at the time by folk in the tech community on fast connections. People really care about this stuff and the only reliable way to know is by engaging them directly.

blowski 4y ago
It seems like lots of people who didn't have low bandwidth so previously used YouTube anyway, switched to using Feather because the page was smaller by being focused more narrowly on their needs. By the sounds of it, though, it was a net loss for Google, which is why the page is still so big. Much of the code might have been irrelevant (even harmful) for the end user, but was necessary for Google's business model. So a side-learning ignored by the article is that there are more types of stakeholder than just the end users, especially in applications that are free (as in beer) at the point of use. And more stakeholders means more complex solutions. And more complex solutions typically mean more code and bigger pages.

chrismorgan 4y ago

> I wonder how much data per second is required to view a YouTube video at the lowest quality setting? It depends a lot on the content. The example I’m about to show comes to about 114kbps (14.25KB/s). You can inspect this sort of thing with tools like yt-dlp (the superior fork of the probably-better-known youtube-dl). Here’s one example from a well-known music video: $ yt-dlp -F 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ' [youtube] dQw4w9WgXcQ: Downloading webpage [youtube] dQw4w9WgXcQ: Downloading android player API JSON [info] Available formats for dQw4w9WgXcQ: ID EXT RESOLUTION FPS │ FILESIZE TBR PROTO │ VCODEC VBR ACODEC ABR ASR MORE INFO ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── sb2 mhtml 48x27 0 │ mhtml │ images storyboard sb1 mhtml 80x45 1 │ mhtml │ images storyboard sb0 mhtml 160x90 1 │ mhtml │ images storyboard 139 m4a audio only │ 1.23MiB 49k https │ audio only mp4a.40.5 49k 22k low, m4a_dash 249 webm audio only │ 1.18MiB 46k https │ audio only opus 46k 48k low, webm_dash 250 webm audio only │ 1.55MiB 61k https │ audio only opus 61k 48k low, webm_dash 140 m4a audio only │ 3.27MiB 130k https │ audio only mp4a.40.2 130k 44k medium, m4a_dash 251 webm audio only │ 3.28MiB 130k https │ audio only opus 130k 48k medium, webm_dash 17 3gp 176x144 6 │ 1.97MiB 78k https │ mp4v.20.3 78k mp4a.40.2 0k 22k 144p 394 mp4 256x144 25 │ 1.71MiB 68k https │ av01.0.00M.08 68k video only 144p, mp4_dash 160 mp4 256x144 25 │ 1.82MiB 72k https │ avc1.4d400c 72k video only 144p, mp4_dash 278 webm 256x144 25 │ 2.27MiB 90k https │ vp9 90k video only 144p, webm_dash 395 mp4 426x240 25 │ 3.37MiB 134k https │ av01.0.00M.08 134k video only 240p, mp4_dash 133 mp4 426x240 25 │ 2.96MiB 117k https │ avc1.4d4015 117k video only 240p, mp4_dash 242 webm 426x240 25 │ 4.02MiB 159k https │ vp9 159k video only 240p, webm_dash 396 mp4 640x360 25 │ 6.57MiB 260k https │ av01.0.01M.08 260k video only 360p, mp4_dash 134 mp4 640x360 25 │ 5.55MiB 220k https │ avc1.4d401e 220k video only 360p, mp4_dash 18 mp4 640x360 25 │ 15.04MiB 595k https │ avc1.42001E 595k mp4a.40.2 0k 48k 360p 243 webm 640x360 25 │ 6.93MiB 274k https │ vp9 274k video only 360p, webm_dash 397 mp4 854x480 25 │ 11.45MiB 453k https │ av01.0.04M.08 453k video only 480p, mp4_dash 135 mp4 854x480 25 │ 8.52MiB 337k https │ avc1.4d401e 337k video only 480p, mp4_dash 244 webm 854x480 25 │ 10.04MiB 397k https │ vp9 397k video only 480p, webm_dash 22 mp4 1280x720 25 │ ~66.22MiB 2559k https │ avc1.64001F 2559k mp4a.40.2 0k 44k 720p 398 mp4 1280x720 25 │ 23.71MiB 938k https │ av01.0.05M.08 938k video only 720p, mp4_dash 136 mp4 1280x720 25 │ 16.56MiB 655k https │ avc1.4d401f 655k video only 720p, mp4_dash 247 webm 1280x720 25 │ 16.97MiB 671k https │ vp9 671k video only 720p, webm_dash 399 mp4 1920x1080 25 │ 45.16MiB 1786k https │ av01.0.08M.08 1786k video only 1080p, mp4_dash 137 mp4 1920x1080 25 │ 89.66MiB 3547k https │ avc1.640028 3547k video only 1080p, mp4_dash So the audio for that 3:32 video is around 1.2MB at the lower quality (format 249, 46kbps), and the video starts at about 1.7MB (format 394, 68kbps). Cumulatively that’s 114kbps. Well, there’s also the 3gp form where you can appreciate the entire thing at 6fps for under 2MB. Given the size, it’s pretty tolerable, really, and a fun curio if nothing else. (The source article speaks of 100KB taking 2 minutes, which corresponds to 6.7kbps, which is extraordinarily slow. Well, at that rate it would take you an hour to load the 3MB of the video in this example, though experience suggests that at those speeds other stuff is extremely likely to clog things up further. But then, maybe that clogging is already taken into account.)

kccqzy 4y ago

Tens of kilobytes per second, at the lowest 144p setting.