Ask HN: Why don't we stream websites like movies? Streaming data would allow for "browser-based applications" (e.g. single request/refresh-less web applications). Why is the standard approach still transactional? |
Ask HN: Why don't we stream websites like movies? Streaming data would allow for "browser-based applications" (e.g. single request/refresh-less web applications). Why is the standard approach still transactional? |
The first is latency. When you scroll or click, you want the response to happen quickly. If you're streaming the response you have to wait for at least one round trip before anything happens.
Secondly is bandwidth. For all the snark about bloated images and JS libraries, the web is extremely bandwidth light. A 1080p video is less so.
Thirdly, it was tried before. Opera Mini used to render pages before sending them out. It sort of worked for low powered devices but had a lot of quirks which I think gave the idea a bad name.
Finally, it would be impossible to block ads on a streamed website. See https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2023/07/the-future-of-the-web-is-vn...
The only potential drawback I see is whether or not search crawlers could index content that's introduced via JS after a page load.
Edit: It also appears to protect from scraping... so I suspect it would conflict with indexability. That's a pretty big downside if true.
[1] https://www.stallman.org/archives/2023-jul-oct.html#26_Septe...
[2] https://www.stallman.org/archives/2023-jul-oct.html#11_Septe...
An average website is a couple megs (maybe?)
What advantage would "streaming" that have over just loading it?
How would you account for AJAXy sites/services?
Edit: It is almost AJAX. The more I think about it the more the boundaries get blurry. Essentially, it's AJAX that does not fetch or receive resources directly. It interacts with a buffer that holds JSON which describes the next batch of cards. The images are streamed via <img> tag, so the buffer is small relative to the media it represents.
That is to say: You would load your desired website (the standard way) and then experience a "refresh-less" session for the duration of your visit.
Imagine visiting this website, Hacker News, to read a few posts/discussions. Does the idea of circumventing a refresh offend you? You could click into a threaded discussion (from the homepage) and back without triggering a reload or needing the data beforehand.
Other than the indexability problem, it seems like an ideal solution. In many use cases, the indexability problem is actually a feature too.
I haven't understood why apps are not what you ask, so I tried to remember some well-known technologies/approaches.
> Does the idea of circumventing a refresh offend you?
Yes because I prefer to request things from online when I want but not when my device wants.
I'm talking about websites that function like apps but have the privacy/security benefits of being sandboxed inside the browser (accessed by URL or link).
It seems we may be talking about different things. I am not advocating for downloadable apps (I've never liked the app store paradigm nor the access it grants random developers). I'm advocating for more capable websites (which IMO "ought" to protect user data--not leverage it).
What privacy benefits are not being realized by the current approach? If I want privacy, I can just disable JS for not letting some website know too much about my device. But in general, privacy is a joke since Edward Snowden's revelations.
> I'm advocating for more capable websites (which IMO "ought" to protect user data--not leverage it).
What opportunities are not being realized with the current approach? Who will be responsible for protecting user data, given that every website/resource/service strives to sell Alphabet/Meta as much data about you as possible.