8 ms·

Bandwidth costs a fortune on mobile devices in most countries around the world. It's a legitimate whinge.

by bwarp 15y ago

jonknee 15y ago
And Chrome 17 isn't available on mobile devices. A similar feature is on Chrome for Android, but is on by default only if the user is connected through WiFi.
- darklajid 15y ago
  Let me introduce you to a world of people with laptops (bigger screen, easier to type on, supports actual work) tethered to their phones.
  - jonknee 15y ago
    Let me introduce you to "settings". You can disable the omnibox, prediction, instant, etc.
    - darklajid 15y ago
      Which would be fine, if the default is 'off'. It isn't, as far as I understand. It seems you like that feature. I respect that, just like I totally understand that for some users 'instant search' on Google is a good feature. For me this is a misfeature though and, given the potential network abuse, shouldn't be on by default. Ignore the mobile network: Every hotel I've been to in Europe and Israel had very crappy wifi quality. I'm pretty sure that I'll hate sitting in a lobby with or on the same floor as Chrome users with that setting turned on (granted: Depends on usage patterns and how frequent this feature would jump into life). On those connections I can easily throttle myself to death by opening three tabs. Please don't go for the low-hanging 'fix the network' here. I cannot. And that's a real world scenario that will become worse by a setting that defaults to true although it might very well create problems for the user _and others around him_.
      - jonknee 15y ago
        One person on the network watching YouTube/NetFlix or streaming music is going to use tons more bandwidth than Chrome predicting where you'll go. Same for everyone with mail clients that automatically check every X minutes. Also, I'd imagine Chrome is right a good portion of the time which is no extra bandwidth at all, just faster. It's also pages you frequently visit, which means the cache will almost always be used (visiting Google uses a whopping 1.5KB). Furthermore, Chrome automatically updates itself, which is also going to use a lot of bandwidth. Everyone here seems to love the auto updates... If you have bandwidth trouble, it's not unreasonable to flip a few switches. For everyone else, the better experience is probably worthwhile.
        bwarp 15y ago
        That's fine until you hit C|Net or some other shite filled web site which is 2.8Mb to hit the front page. That's 1097 preloads and the base 3G rate (3Gb) in the UK is used up. 1Mb after that costs about $1.50 so each subsequent preload of CNET would cost you $4.20. Does that sound fair? 3G monthly bills will hit the thousand dollar mark with little effort. On a standard ADSL plan in the UK (5Gb), that is 1828 preloads and the data allowance is used up. After that, rate limiting kicks in which makes everything bar browsing light weight web sites unusable. That's not many. It's totally offensive usage of my connection and if it's turned on by default, people are going to get screwed badly. The better experience point is a load of shit - it's a workaround for crap sites which don't load in a reasonable amount of time the first time. It's not the browser's job to make "intelligent" decisions for me.
guynamedloren 15y ago
And we should have a lesser user experience because of that? No. Stay on Chrome 16 and quit complaining.
- ortatherox 15y ago
  Is this a joke? Chrome is known for its seriously agressive update system. Meaning staying on Chrome 16 is nigh on impossible. Not that I really have an opinion on the auto-loading of URLs mind you.

Bandwidth costs a fortune on mobile devices in most countries around the world. It's a legitimate whinge.

by bwarp 15y ago

Bandwidth costs a fortune on mobile devices in most countries around the world. It's a legitimate whinge.

And Chrome 17 isn't available on mobile devices. A similar feature is on Chrome for Android, but is on by default only if the user is connected through WiFi.

darklajid 15y ago
Let me introduce you to a world of people with laptops (bigger screen, easier to type on, supports actual work) tethered to their phones.
- jonknee 15y ago
  Let me introduce you to "settings". You can disable the omnibox, prediction, instant, etc.
  - darklajid 15y ago
    Which would be fine, if the default is 'off'. It isn't, as far as I understand. It seems you like that feature. I respect that, just like I totally understand that for some users 'instant search' on Google is a good feature. For me this is a misfeature though and, given the potential network abuse, shouldn't be on by default. Ignore the mobile network: Every hotel I've been to in Europe and Israel had very crappy wifi quality. I'm pretty sure that I'll hate sitting in a lobby with or on the same floor as Chrome users with that setting turned on (granted: Depends on usage patterns and how frequent this feature would jump into life). On those connections I can easily throttle myself to death by opening three tabs. Please don't go for the low-hanging 'fix the network' here. I cannot. And that's a real world scenario that will become worse by a setting that defaults to true although it might very well create problems for the user _and others around him_.
    - jonknee 15y ago
      One person on the network watching YouTube/NetFlix or streaming music is going to use tons more bandwidth than Chrome predicting where you'll go. Same for everyone with mail clients that automatically check every X minutes. Also, I'd imagine Chrome is right a good portion of the time which is no extra bandwidth at all, just faster. It's also pages you frequently visit, which means the cache will almost always be used (visiting Google uses a whopping 1.5KB). Furthermore, Chrome automatically updates itself, which is also going to use a lot of bandwidth. Everyone here seems to love the auto updates... If you have bandwidth trouble, it's not unreasonable to flip a few switches. For everyone else, the better experience is probably worthwhile.
      - bwarp 15y ago
        That's fine until you hit C|Net or some other shite filled web site which is 2.8Mb to hit the front page. That's 1097 preloads and the base 3G rate (3Gb) in the UK is used up. 1Mb after that costs about $1.50 so each subsequent preload of CNET would cost you $4.20. Does that sound fair? 3G monthly bills will hit the thousand dollar mark with little effort. On a standard ADSL plan in the UK (5Gb), that is 1828 preloads and the data allowance is used up. After that, rate limiting kicks in which makes everything bar browsing light weight web sites unusable. That's not many. It's totally offensive usage of my connection and if it's turned on by default, people are going to get screwed badly. The better experience point is a load of shit - it's a workaround for crap sites which don't load in a reasonable amount of time the first time. It's not the browser's job to make "intelligent" decisions for me.

guynamedloren 15y ago

And we should have a lesser user experience because of that? No. Stay on Chrome 16 and quit complaining.

ortatherox 15y ago
Is this a joke? Chrome is known for its seriously agressive update system. Meaning staying on Chrome 16 is nigh on impossible. Not that I really have an opinion on the auto-loading of URLs mind you.