2 ms·
To be fair: they don't want short, small videos any more than they specifically wanted gifs. They want moving images that load quickly. Which has meant short/
by roc 12y ago
To be fair: they don't want short, small videos any more than they specifically wanted gifs.
They want moving images that load quickly. Which has meant short/small/gifs, because most US bandwidth still sucks. And thanks to the mobile explosion it now means short/small/h264.
But I bet that as people become used to 5-10x space savings from h264, they'll quickly respond with videos having 5-10x more data. (larger/longer/higher-res clips)
- ObnoxiousJul 12y agowell, it loads quickly because contents are provided according to your user agent and black magic with js pinging your nearest best CDN possible near you and with optimal bandwidth, and then, according to a complex choice in a matrix of supported codec(your SW)/compression(CPU)/bandwidth(the net) a video is chosen through painful trial and errors, where every choices in the matrix (growing at the power of 3 and more) is almost made by humans. The "progress" we could benefits from these new techniques is so complicated and resource greedy and provoking a lock in of customers that I don't think it far outweigh the cost of the poor compression/control of the gif.