[frollogaston]

I feel like the market of apps and websites has usually been irrational about bloat because developers tend to have beefy machines. It required a beefy machine just to use Twitter without lag, and now X is the same. In the 2000s it was excessive Flash instead, or Java for apps.

Some sites like Google were able to measure the user-engagement cost of slowness and chose to optimize, but they're exceptional. I doubt most businesses know the cost.

[cosmic_cheese]

I don’t think it’d be the worst idea to require devs to regularly test against something like a late era Core 2 Duo or i5-2500 machine with 4-8GB of RAM on the equivalent of a 3G connection. A lot of improvement could be netted from that alone.

[frollogaston]

It'd help, but leadership would have to commit to actually caring about those metrics, which would only work if dev envs are portable enough to run on the slow test machines before it's launch day. Otherwise the only real way is to give devs slow machines.

[mrweasel]

Same for phone. I don't think anyone tests their websites on older devices anymore. Many sites have become useless, because it assumes that you have a massive screen, a modern GPU and plenty of memory. There's no point in having a video as a background, or load an excessive amount of Javascript, just to show me a news feed.

No one cares anymore, and I doubt that any hardware supply bottlenecks will improve that. It's not something that anyone care to measure.

[frollogaston]

They might be finding that there's more engagement on phone apps than phone website. That could just be because the phone website sucks, but idk, maybe people are really used to downloading apps. Someone on HN mentioned they went all-in on a PWA then realized nobody wanted it.