4 ms·

But the use case is just to serve videos right? I know that new things will not come. But YouTube is almost the same in these 10 years I think.

• spankalee 1y ago
  Even simple web apps can benefit from web platform improvements. JS, HTML, and CSS have all gotten significantly better in recent years. But YouTube is also a very complex app. Yes it "just" exists to play videos, but the app is so much more than a video player. Browsing, searching, comments, chat, playlists, YT Live, subscriptions, profiles, ratings... there's a lot there.
  • troupo 1y ago
    And which of those things that people could build already in mid-90s require some nebulous unspecified "new broswer features"? Perhaps they could start with just cutting down their bloated 100x-duplicated 4MB CSS file?
    • userbinator 1y ago
      <video> tag is probably the biggest change, but I still remember YT used SWF/FLV before then (and likely could still do today). However, it's clear that the devs are mainly composed of trendchasing sheeple who have drunk the Goog-Aid and are addicted to newness and reinventing wheels to make them square... because they have to justify their existence.
      • Tommy430 1y ago
        YT2009 and WarpStream (Protoweb) prove the old YouTube can still work today. The new one is just a cat and mouse game of diminishing returns.