Thanks for a very helpful link. So it's not even a Google developed project in the first place but instead something they're signing on with in support.
I think the worry over the content streaming directly from Google services is needless. Google is right that it would speed things up. With so many shill complaints from the Microsoft front FairSearch.org promping investigations over unfair practices already I would be shocked if Google used it the opportunity to change the intent of web operators. No, I think Google really is trying to assist in speeding up the web for users and content providers alike. Of course it benefits companies like Google, Microsoft and Apple too that depend so heavily on web content and services to support their business plans.
It's a good thing we've got such a conscientious company working so hard for our self-interest instead of their own, huh?
It's a good thing we've got such a conscientious company working so hard for our self-interest instead of their own, huh?
Whoops! You made another mistake in Google's favour again. That was a bit unfortunate. And a coincidence.
Yay! Just in the nick of time, eh?
Unless they're saving a substantial amount of bandwidth and cutting half of the ads, I doubt they're really helping with user experience; maybe we just get more ads in the same time. Right now, slowness restricted how many ads you could put in a page (for those that actually cared about that, some site don't).
Considering Google's own heap of bad code (their JS for years was the most vile thing ever), the fact that you have to do 50 different connections to load a page is also contributing to the mess, there is a lot to fix...
I guess they want all those other ads to pipeline through the same http connection instead of having to do a separate DNS lookup, local caching, remote caching (not from google) or server (non google server) cycle for each online advertisers.
That means its faster on the loading for a remote site (lot less latency), but they got advertisers by the balls (probably get more revenue from them too).
On the device itself though, it doesn't help much, pages still are bloated from ads once you get the ad data and takes CPU and memory to load up.
I prefer optimization help the content user experience and this is not really helping.
Fewer links, fewer documents to load (including images), fewer scripts to execute = faster site loading.
Ads are a significant consumer of bandwidth, memory, and CPU usage compared to the pure content of a website.
Tests have been performed with ad blockers, and they decrease page load times. They also improve device battery life (by 21%, if all you do is browse the web, see the link).
Unless they're saving a substantial amount of bandwidth and cutting half of the ads, I doubt they're really helping with user experience; maybe we just get more ads in the same time. Right now, slowness restricted how many ads you could put in a page (for those that actually cared about that, some site don't).
Just take any Wordpress site (there are millions of them) and look how badly formed HTML pages it generates. And most of them don't have ads.
Too much sites have home pages that without the ads are more than 2 MB in size. Which is OK if you are a broadband connection at home, but is a frustrating experience using a 3G connection on a bad location. I own a software company and two months ago an Indian company offered me cheep SW developers to help me in a big mobile project. I did not choose the company because their homepage was 6 MB in size, which took more than 3 minutes to load on a slow connection. It is important that web sites developers make their sites accessible for slow connections.
So yes Google has a point. I have not checked the product Google is offering, but making developers aware that sites should be optimized for slow connections is definitely worth doing.
Comments
It's a good thing we've got such a conscientious company working so hard for our self-interest instead of their own, huh?
Whoops! You made another mistake in Google's favour again. That was a bit unfortunate. And a coincidence.
Yay! Just in the nick of time, eh?
Unless they're saving a substantial amount of bandwidth and cutting half of the ads, I doubt they're really helping with user experience; maybe we just get more ads in the same time. Right now, slowness restricted how many ads you could put in a page (for those that actually cared about that, some site don't).
Considering Google's own heap of bad code (their JS for years was the most vile thing ever), the fact that you have to do 50 different connections to load a page is also contributing to the mess, there is a lot to fix...
I guess they want all those other ads to pipeline through the same http connection instead of having to do a separate DNS lookup, local caching, remote caching (not from google) or server (non google server) cycle for each online advertisers.
That means its faster on the loading for a remote site (lot less latency), but they got advertisers by the balls (probably get more revenue from them too).
On the device itself though, it doesn't help much, pages still are bloated from ads once you get the ad data and takes CPU and memory to load up.
I prefer optimization help the content user experience and this is not really helping.
Fewer links, fewer documents to load (including images), fewer scripts to execute = faster site loading.
Ads are a significant consumer of bandwidth, memory, and CPU usage compared to the pure content of a website.
Tests have been performed with ad blockers, and they decrease page load times. They also improve device battery life (by 21%, if all you do is browse the web, see the link).
The advantage of using Google's caching servers is because it distributes worldwide so the cache is close to the client.
Understood. But having the option to choose other servers with the same capabilities helps ensure neutrality.
Fewer links, fewer documents to load (including images), fewer scripts to execute = faster site loading.
Essentially, they're bringing HTML back to what it was designed for: a markup language to describe and link static documents/content.
Unless they're saving a substantial amount of bandwidth and cutting half of the ads, I doubt they're really helping with user experience; maybe we just get more ads in the same time. Right now, slowness restricted how many ads you could put in a page (for those that actually cared about that, some site don't).
Just take any Wordpress site (there are millions of them) and look how badly formed HTML pages it generates. And most of them don't have ads.
Too much sites have home pages that without the ads are more than 2 MB in size. Which is OK if you are a broadband connection at home, but is a frustrating experience using a 3G connection on a bad location. I own a software company and two months ago an Indian company offered me cheep SW developers to help me in a big mobile project. I did not choose the company because their homepage was 6 MB in size, which took more than 3 minutes to load on a slow connection. It is important that web sites developers make their sites accessible for slow connections.
So yes Google has a point. I have not checked the product Google is offering, but making developers aware that sites should be optimized for slow connections is definitely worth doing.