> 15% fewer bytes per image makes for a much more responsive experience.
I wonder how they measured this. Seems like perceived speed gains would be sub-linear with file sizes to me. Particularly as actual transfer speed is often too once you factor in network latency patterns.
Irony is that this additional 15% compression was noticed by users - not because of improved responsiveness or load times but because it degraded image quality to such a level that users noticed it.
I agree that with mobile, latency is usually a far bigger factor than throughput when it comes to perceived speed. I would also wonder if, once the image is downloaded, what the performance cost or benefit would be of more compressed images. Are they faster due to a smaller footprint? Or are they more costly to the CPU to decompress? (I would assume the former for JPG, while the latter is often the case with video)
I wonder how they measured this. Seems like perceived speed gains would be sub-linear with file sizes to me. Particularly as actual transfer speed is often too once you factor in network latency patterns.