If it takes ages to load the core content, who’s still left on the site for that other stuff? In his comparison it took 40 seconds to load the image, I’d have closed the tab after 10 and none of that other stuff would matter.
Note that the vanilla 37k image took 2.4 seconds. Most people aren't on a 128 kilobit ISDN line. And there's a good chance you have much of the static content cached.
Anyone can easily build an image-serving website. What's hard is to build an image-serving website that pays for itself. I wouldn't be so quick to judge.
Sure. But he did say this was the mobile site, where you may have connectivity issues or low bandwidth. At home, I would never notice. Hell, I usually have good connectivity on my phone too, BUT often when I’m on the train, I have sketchy speeds and during these times, I do notice slow/overly bloated sites or web apps.
> Anyone can easily build an image-serving website. What's hard is to build an image-serving website that pays for itself. I wouldn't be so quick to judge.
That’s very true, but again, you don’t need a bloated slow (comparatively speaking) app to serve advertisement. If the total time had been 10s (ie 7.5 for adverts etc, 2.5 for content), he probably would have thought eh slow but whatever
