Why did this change? Was it a greed thing?

all 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 79 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

HTML5 made video a first class citizen of your browser and buffering is handled automatically now 🙂

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/Audio_and_video_delivery/buffering_seeking_time_ranges

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 16 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Oh! I just assumed they were trying to save $ on all those looong "___ 10 hr version" videos or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 2 years ago

    It's both. Buffering the whole video was a waste of bandwidth and the changes for HTML5 means they could get away with lowering the buffering limit without destroying everyone's viewing experience.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 57 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    For longer videos, a lot of people will stop watching before the video ends. A lot of bandwidth is wasted by buffering the entire video when the user is only going to watch 50% of it. To save bandwidth, sites like YouTube only buffer a tiny bit at a time.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'm guilty of this. I'll queue up long music mix or ambient videos and just leave them going.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago

    I meant something like opening a two hour long podcast and only listening to 30-60 minutes before closing the tab or switching to a different video. With the old functionality and current internet speeds, it likely would have buffered the entire video in only a few minutes. It could have wasted multiple GB of bandwidth.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'll open dozens of 15-45min videos, watch a few to completion, close the rest after watching a tiny bit or nothing at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    You should add them to a Playlist to save them for later

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    you're not gonna believe this

    so I used to make a new set in the bookmarks folder, then I pull all the current tabs into the new set, then I never watched it ever again
    there are probably ~400 links in that YouTube Sets folder

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Tf thats kind of autistic I used to have a similar problem but I try to keep the list down to like 10-20 cuz be honest if you were truly interested in all 400 of those videos you'd be watching them anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    YouTube still buffers video?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What he means is that, in olden days, videos would just keep buffering until the whole video was loaded. Now it's only at most the next ~1min, no more. You were able to see the grey bar thingie go all the way to the end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    i think its cus a 4k 60hz video would brick anyones ram

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It would buffer to a temp folder. Storing it all in RAM would be pointless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Some people's internet and hard drives would be crippled by this. It's to promote multitasking mostly. There are ways to download videos that I won't get into, but it is possible if you desperately want to buffer the whole video. I do think it's stupid to lock offline video downlaods behind a subscription paywall, but I am small fry and will do what I can.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not at all. If your hard drive would get crippled by a few GBs then I don't know what to tell you. When the playback is stopped, and the application closed, then the temporary files are discarded.

    The argument about bandwidth usage is accurate though. I didn't make sense to buffer the whole video when it might not be watched anyways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I have replaced so many hard drives with solid state drives when the complaint is slow computer. the latency is noticeably slowing down windows and chrome, but the drive is still in good shape. So yeah, there is reason to believe that many people out there buy cheap stuff only for them to need to upgrade for more money in the near future or they live with the slow unfit for the task hardware.

    Yeah, it is bad practice to use up bandwitdh with unneeded downloads when the user is there for short periods or watches small parts or one time. There are plenty of users on pay as you go plans or their infrastructure is slow and limited capacity that we call metered lines. These metered lines can be a last resort reduncy line for network stability. I have seen clients add a wireless line that is cheap to keep active, but they pay for the amount of data used.

    I think the end of buffering the whole large content stream is a good thing. I believe you can add an extension to Firefox that allows for video content to be fully buffered if you want to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    the latency is noticeably slowing down windows and chrome, but the drive is still in good shape.

    The real problem here is Windows. I've seen Windows thrash spinning rust disks continuously for hours and hours until I shut it off. I put Linux on there to see what happens and it's happy as an otter with a clam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I can't stop these people from making terrible choices. Corporations want to reach everyone as possible but for profit, so I promise its mostly the ads that take a hefty toll on their machines.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Especially since some companies are still pushing out computers with only 16MB of RAM in 2023, even a Gameboy emulator would almost max that out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    No one is producing computers with 16MB of ram that are meant to watch videos. Some laptops are still being made with ~2gb RAM. And some computers (in a different sense of the word) are currently being made with less than 32 kb of ram.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    If you think that was bad, you never tried to download porn on a BBS with a 2400 baud modem.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    I am sure there are a few plugins you can use to make it work again.

  • source
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago