5 ms·

The mobile browsers aren't the problem, the content (read: advertising) is the problem. Loading tons of ad images and tracking scripts is what makes it shitty.

by jbob2000 11y ago

revscat 11y ago
This is, I believe, the more correct answer. There are so many different assets being delivered for every URL that it degrades the performance of desktop browsers, let alone mobile ones. HTTP/2 will help somewhat, but the overarching problem -- megs of cruft for every KB of content -- will remain.
- cbr 11y ago
  HTTP/2 isn't really going to help here. When you request five different CSS files and ten tiny images all from one server HTTP/2 does the equivalent of resource combining and helps a lot. The core issue with ads, though, is that no one trusts anyone else, and so all of those requests are going to different servers operated by different groups. Each of those servers will need its own connection with connection startup costs, and if the only purpose is to logging an access and maybe drop a cookie HTTP/2 won't help at all.
- amelius 11y ago
  I read somewhere that the new Safari will have an adblocker, so that would solve this, I guess.
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    It may not address the underlying issues with ad-based revenue for websites but at least for performance, it does make a big difference. Adblocking extensions have been available on other platforms for a while now and they're one of the main reasons I use Firefox as my primary mobile browser (albeit on Android instead of iOS). I can install the same Adblock Plus/Edge/etc. as the desktop version and immediately my little 5" screen is less cluttered, sites load faster, and I use less of my metered data plan. Mobile web browsing without an ad blocker is miserable compared to the same thing on desktop. At least on the desktop you've probably got 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 screens, more processing power, more RAM, and a connection that offers more than 5GB of data each month. With mobile it's unbearable.
jschwartzi 11y ago
As I recently learned when Firefox disabled flash on my work laptop and suddenly pages loaded in a fraction of a second instead of seconds.
Touche 11y ago
I agree, and the answer is that browsers should start shipping ad-blockers as a core feature and have them on by default. Tracking scripts and ad-spam should be treated the same way pop-up ads were treated 10 years ago. I'm not saying kill advertising, but they could control it so that only a set number (2 or 3) ad scripts could run per page, not the 10-15 that is common nowadays.
- eevilspock 11y ago
  > I'm not saying kill advertising Well, I do say kill advertising :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961761
  - Touche 11y ago
    I don't think that's the purview of browsers. Browsers are, however, responsible for maintaining a good user experience, so the length to which ads and tracking scripts, like pop-ups of years before, create a poor user experience the browser is right to take measures to block bad actors. I think limiting the number of ad/tracking scripts is a measure towards that.
oblio 11y ago
Well, that's how it works in the printed press or TV as well. You either pay a lot for the content or 25-50% of it is actually ads.
api 11y ago
You get what you pay for. Everyone wants everything to be free, therefore it is shit, and you shouldn't complain because if it's free you are not the customer. The advertisers are the customers. Of course radio and TV are the same way. Mass media has always been a race to the bottom where producers race to out-do themselves on offering 'free' content of absolute minimum quality to occupy someone's time and get ad dollars. Listen to the absolute shit that fills free TV and radio airwaves.
- iamcurious 11y ago
  Everyone wants everything to be free Market dynamics are complex and the wants of the uncoordinated many are usually override by the wants of the coordinated few. For instance, Microsoft wanted core competencies of the competition to be free. So it developed Internet Explorer and bundled with every Windows system. The wants of the people weren't relevant. You get what you pay for, therefore it is shit. This implies a correlation between money and quality, which not always holds. Some things are free and aren't shit. For example: Linux Some things are made shit when they aren't free. For example: many scientific papers . Things that require effort usually require an incentive. Money, specially paying for use, isn't the silver bullet of incentives.

The mobile browsers aren't the problem, the content (read: advertising) is the problem. Loading tons of ad images and tracking scripts is what makes it shitty.

revscat 11y ago

This is, I believe, the more correct answer. There are so many different assets being delivered for every URL that it degrades the performance of desktop browsers, let alone mobile ones. HTTP/2 will help somewhat, but the overarching problem -- megs of cruft for every KB of content -- will remain.

cbr 11y ago
HTTP/2 isn't really going to help here. When you request five different CSS files and ten tiny images all from one server HTTP/2 does the equivalent of resource combining and helps a lot. The core issue with ads, though, is that no one trusts anyone else, and so all of those requests are going to different servers operated by different groups. Each of those servers will need its own connection with connection startup costs, and if the only purpose is to logging an access and maybe drop a cookie HTTP/2 won't help at all.
amelius 11y ago
I read somewhere that the new Safari will have an adblocker, so that would solve this, I guess.
- soylentcola 11y ago
  It may not address the underlying issues with ad-based revenue for websites but at least for performance, it does make a big difference. Adblocking extensions have been available on other platforms for a while now and they're one of the main reasons I use Firefox as my primary mobile browser (albeit on Android instead of iOS). I can install the same Adblock Plus/Edge/etc. as the desktop version and immediately my little 5" screen is less cluttered, sites load faster, and I use less of my metered data plan. Mobile web browsing without an ad blocker is miserable compared to the same thing on desktop. At least on the desktop you've probably got 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 screens, more processing power, more RAM, and a connection that offers more than 5GB of data each month. With mobile it's unbearable.

jschwartzi 11y ago

As I recently learned when Firefox disabled flash on my work laptop and suddenly pages loaded in a fraction of a second instead of seconds.

Touche 11y ago

I agree, and the answer is that browsers should start shipping ad-blockers as a core feature and have them on by default. Tracking scripts and ad-spam should be treated the same way pop-up ads were treated 10 years ago. I'm not saying kill advertising, but they could control it so that only a set number (2 or 3) ad scripts could run per page, not the 10-15 that is common nowadays.

eevilspock 11y ago
> I'm not saying kill advertising Well, I do say kill advertising :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961761 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961761
- Touche 11y ago
  I don't think that's the purview of browsers. Browsers are, however, responsible for maintaining a good user experience, so the length to which ads and tracking scripts, like pop-ups of years before, create a poor user experience the browser is right to take measures to block bad actors. I think limiting the number of ad/tracking scripts is a measure towards that.

oblio 11y ago

Well, that's how it works in the printed press or TV as well. You either pay a lot for the content or 25-50% of it is actually ads.

api 11y ago

You get what you pay for. Everyone wants everything to be free, therefore it is shit, and you shouldn't complain because if it's free you are not the customer. The advertisers are the customers. Of course radio and TV are the same way. Mass media has always been a race to the bottom where producers race to out-do themselves on offering 'free' content of absolute minimum quality to occupy someone's time and get ad dollars. Listen to the absolute shit that fills free TV and radio airwaves.

iamcurious 11y ago
Everyone wants everything to be free Market dynamics are complex and the wants of the uncoordinated many are usually override by the wants of the coordinated few. For instance, Microsoft wanted core competencies of the competition to be free. So it developed Internet Explorer and bundled with every Windows system. The wants of the people weren't relevant. You get what you pay for, therefore it is shit. This implies a correlation between money and quality, which not always holds. Some things are free and aren't shit. For example: Linux Some things are made shit when they aren't free. For example: many scientific papers . Things that require effort usually require an incentive. Money, specially paying for use, isn't the silver bullet of incentives.