Client side rendered won't be faster all things being equal since they'll have to make at least an extra round trip request after the initial (html/js/css) requests for data from the API, but it should definitely be much cheaper since you can lean on the client's compute rather than solely your own servers.
Given the popularity of facebook/reddit/twitter/gmail etc. it seems users think client-side rendering is fast enough, and what each of those sites have in common is the impracticability of precaching every single user's version of the application anyways.
Given the popularity of facebook/reddit/gmail etc. it seems users think client-side rendering is fast enough
No, users are being forced to choose between not using those services, and using something which is clearly getting worse. There are plenty of complaints, yet the self-centered developers just don't care since they know the users will keep eating whatever shit they put out.
(...and in the case of Reddit, the existence and continuing popularity of old.reddit.com is noteworthy.)
I believe that all social networks (which are technically services) should be separated out as not simply providing a service. In the same way that the Bell Telephone System was a service, it was also inherently a social network. Owning the Bell System and selling it to people who have no alternative--because for a true alternative to exist, you would have to build a parallel Bell System--is quite a different endeavor than providing another non-social network service nationwide/worldwide. To compete against a nationwide chain of household cleaning operations, you can simply start by outcompeting them in some way in one single market. A customer who is deciding who to pay to clean their house doesn't lose out by choosing a fantastic local competitor. A customer who is deciding what social network to use to keep in touch with family and friends would be losing out if they chose an upstart social network that most of their family and friends aren't on. Even incredibly powerful and wealthy companies struggle to compete with established social media networks because no matter how good their "service" is, you aren't competing merely on how good your service is, you are competing with how many nodes are on your network.
I don't have a workable solution to how to solve this problem of social media natural monopolies, but it is a huge problem. The telephone system and the internet are the most obvious models to focus on replicating in terms of handling the problem of network effects, and to the extent that those succeed or fail in meeting the needs of their users/customers, we should at least be able to match in our solution to the problem of addressing the monopoly issues inherent in the social networks that exist or will exist in the future.
One rather radical idea I'll leave you with is -- should all communication networks be treated as one single network? In the same way that "energy" is the unifying concept that encompasses "nuclear power" and "fossil fuels", social networks, the telephone system, and the internet are all within "telecommunication". "Energy" is a lot more basic/fundamental to the laws of physics, but telecommunication is definitely universal to humans on earth now and into the future indefinitely.
I don't disagree that it can somewhat diminish user experience. But if users still are scrolling over posts & ads in greater numbers than ever before with cheaper running costs per user--then it does seem a superior option from a business standpoint at least...
>but it should definitely be much cheaper since you can lean on the client's compute rather than solely your own servers.
The only part you offload is the rendering of the final html/css. Your servers still need to serve the raw html/css, the js and the api requests. The difference between that and server rendered html is so small as to be a rounding error even for google.
>Given the popularity of facebook/reddit/twitter/gmail
Tolerance and popularity are two different things. And old reddit is still incredibly popular despite not having an update in three years.
The only time you should even think about using client side rendering is when you need an application that is seamless. Other than maps, office and full blown desktop environments there is no reason to ever use client side rendering.
"Lean" on the client's compute. Some websites should be ashamed, because what they are doing is basically "stealing" client compute with overbearing JS. A lot of news sites, for one.
You can make anything slow if you make it complex enough. I have a slow mobile and in-browser Reddit loads in about 10 seconds or so. Twitter is not much better.
Given the popularity of facebook/reddit/twitter/gmail etc. it seems users think client-side rendering is fast enough, and what each of those sites have in common is the impracticability of precaching every single user's version of the application anyways.