> Come on. Look at the experience and tell me you expected it to be 1kb? This is an interactive application, not a text document. [...] We have started to chase a false “unicorn” narrative of websites with expected app-like experiences, but sizes like text documents from the 2000s. Something doesn’t add up.
I don't expect websites to being the kB range, but somewhere in the single digit megabytes seems to me like a reasonable limit
They have no way to increase sales due to basically complete market saturation, so instead they find new ways to soak their existing customer base.
People always seem to forget how horrible things were when at&t was about to acquire T-Mobile. Had they not been forced to hand TM all that spectrum we’d still be paying $100/mo for 2GB of hard capped data.
This. When I (in France) can €15.99 a month for unlimited calls and texts to phones in France, the US, Canada, China (plus unlimited calls to fixed lines in 100 other countries, too) and a 100GB 4G data plan included, too, it seems crazy that US carriers charge so much. Sure, there are infrastrcuture differences in serving a country of more than 300 million spread out over a landmass so big rather than a small, more densely populated country like France, but it still seems out of control.
Spectrum is actually limited and cell towers aren't free.
Funny, for all those reasons 5g has moved to a shared model.
Bandwidth is scarce because it's limited by physics. There's some minor inefficiencies, but it's generally pretty good, in terms of bits per second per Hertz.
Is he using it wrong?
I understand that you don’t want a high phone bill, but in a lot of ways this limit is self-imposed.
You chose a small limit that fits a light user. Someone who doesn’t check webpages purely out of boredom or phone addiction will have no problem staying within a small data limit like this even if they occasionally visit a large, video-based marketing site once in a while.
Meanwhile, unlimited plans from various carriers in the United States are reasonably priced enough. $40/month from Visible (Verizon MVNO), for example.
As to 6GB being a "small limit that fits a light user" - I use my data for work, tethering a couple hours every work day. I also browse/read probably an hour a day on data. I stay within the limit by avoiding YouTube, and now apparently apple websites.
The page isn’t well designed (from the performance point of view) for whatever it’s meant to showcase.
People accuse Google of being hostile to Firefox and partial to Chrome on its properties, and here Apple seems to be doing the same to its own hardware and browsers (depending on the year and version).
May be it is just me, I dont expect or want a "App Like" experience. I want a page, and at best a slightly interactive, moderate animation added web page. Not Web App.
I dont see many around me wanted Web App either ( At least for AirPod Pro Page Purposes ). The chase to Web App, or expected to be web apps has been coming from developers and solely developers.
So the I think the chase App experience and Size from 2000s is a false narrative in itself.
I would have given it a pass grade if the Apple AirPro Page were loading smoothly, but it wasn't. The page didn't even scroll at 30fps with my quad core MacBook Pro, and I am longing for Webpage or even Apps to render at 120fps.
It is heavy but looks fast because you pay for it in advance, and it looks and works great. Well, except for the bit about needing an iPhone or iPad to see the airpods in AR, I'm sure it could have been done in a more compatible way.
Edit: gave in and opened the AR bit on an iPad. it's just a non-interactive 3D model of the opened case with the earphones shown, that you can spin manually or image in your desk and spin yourself around it. Nothing actually interesting.
Wholeheartedly agree with the quoted comment
Youtube is amazing, it starts playing the video before even the video title is rendered or any other part of the page is loaded. Who cares if it downloads who knows how many megabytes of JS or HTML before the DOM is ready?
On the other hand, after clicking on a tweet link Twitter would show me multiple loading indicator, load the main page then show me some more loading indicator and then show me the tweet text and after a while, I can see the images attached to the tweet. It is often the same for any other "Web App".
On Apple's case, the page actually becomes usable almost instantly. The page would first show me the title on the black background and then the airpods photo would fade in from the darkness and I would be able to scroll immediately. I would say, the experience is closer to Youtube than Twitter.
People with limited data caps. If it really did download 60 MB on my phone (it seems like it's somewhat adaptive, so it's quite likely Apple's web designers paid attention and it wouldn't), that'd be 2 % of my monthly data cap, for what's effectively a product page.
They probably set the limits to accommodate best the iPhone users who are willing to spend 250$ on a non-essential device that will last about 2 years.
Then of course I'll probably never buy their product, so my experience isn't that important.
How can a user know that browsing a single page will cost him more than a whatsapp (video) call before doing it?
A lot of iOS and macOS software and websites are designed with assumption of having good infrastructure only affluent western world has.
If anyone knows how this is achieved, I'd love to follow some links.
For example, here are 3 frames of the hair flip:
NYT did a similar scrolly article recently, but they used a video that was synced to scroll position: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/30/world/middlee...
Another option is the Network Information API: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Network_Inf... (Only supported by Chrome so far.)
And in the client, the NetInfo API: https://wicg.github.io/netinfo/
How’s that a good experience?
On mobile it would be super easy to just have it snap in place: one flick goes to the next “slide.”
But no. Let’s treat websites as videos and the scroll as a way to manually play them.
Those numbers definitely make it sound like it's not the ideal solution for the client. But from Apple's perspective, does anyone know how much more their servers are being taxed per-view? (Not sure if they have caching solutions to alleviate the load. That is a lot of packets to send, though.)
This machine doesn't have retina. Maybe for retina machines it loads larger artwork. Also there's a bunch of errors in the console including:
Error: WebGL: Disallowing antialiased backbuffers due to blacklisting.main.built.js:10:16167
Error: Cannot find module '@marcom/ac-polyfills/Array/prototype.forEach'
Strict-Transport-Security: The site specified a header that could not be parsed successfully
The errors don't seem to have affected anything, but maybe more stuff didn't load because of the errors.
Oh wait people are seeing video? Yeah I don't get any videos.
Also what is a recommended tool of 2019 to convert video to images ?
I think there are some restrictions on video encoding parameters in order to make scrolling feel smooth which will increase the video size.
As for the tool, ffmpeg seems to work well enough.
Does anyone know if there is a way to detect that setting from within Safari? Would be cool to provide a low-fi version of a page if that was detected.
For low data mode specifically, looks like you can easily get "allowsConstrainedNetworkAccess" from an iOS app , but don't see anything comparable available for Safari or Firefox.
Trim strips it down to 12KB. And really it still conveys the message with just text just fine.
What other types of pages would you let Apple get away with that you might not let, say, Amazon, or Google, or Microsoft, or Facebook get away with?
I really don't know how to solve such problem. Usually the language will encourage the flawed usages it allows. A language must always put constraints to avoid unwanted usages. Either that or have browsers not display pages that are too large, by having a size limit or something of that fashion.