Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Oh my god.. not that video again!

Sorry, but this is the most unprofessional comparison i have ever seen.

First, out of three mobiles only one supports flash and that one loads a site 1 sec slower?

Second, Ads are served from different servers and it's quite common that ads are served slow.. i have browsed the mainpage with a whopping 3 flash ads and waited like 5 seconds for the flash ads to be displayed after the whole rest of the page was there.. on my desktop!

Third, 3 devices in a speedtest fighting over one wifi connection on the same channel for bandwidth? Really?

Please, for the sake of god, if you do comparisons and benchmarks, do them right! That the whole web is linking this video is awful.

My personal experience with flash: One site gave browser crashes (flashgames). The rest of the world played nicely so far, with good performance, surprisingly good, actually. And for a beta release, i hope this one site will play on release.

Again.. please don't do this.

Worst. Benchmark. EVER.

edit: pocketnow.com copied locally, served form local network, one device at a time, stopwatch. It's not that hard... If you ignore the fact that you are comparing browsers without flash to browsers with flash.. that's stupid. He should've added lynx to it.


Agree. This is a case of, um, Apples versus Oranges.

One can turn off JPEGs in a browser and have the page load faster than a browser that loads images. But that does not merit writing an article entitled "JPEGs proven to ruin Android 2.2 performance".


Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact