Lemmy still consumed less data than reddit even heavily used
Lemmy still consumed less data than reddit even heavily used
Lemmy is surprisingly good for the small amount of people compared to Reddit. And even with all the Images the apps have to load, the consume less data than reddit.
This month (Ce mois-ci) the use of reddit was very limited and a bit of r/place to look at the amazing anti-reddit art. Lemmy : about 3gB Reddit : 2.33gB
Last month (Le mois dernier) it was only reddit use. 12.49gB
Tho there aren't really many videos on Lemmy, which may explain a part of the difference.
And on reddit well there are the ads and the tracking.
I suspect this has to do with the lack of video. I could be wrong of course.
49This would be the biggest part. Right now Lemmy cannot be compared 1:1 but somehow I don't really miss video content.
Also reddit has a lot of ads and some of them are video ads which consume data just for displaying them.
17I dont miss the amount of unnecessary videos. So many of them could have just been text that could be read before the video could even load.
10
Part of this may just be that Lemmy does not stream video through the app right? Also most Lemmy servers force very small image sizes.
18Maybe you should switch from the Reddit app to using Firefox. Reddit's app is very data hungry
17Ayo, fellow ReVanced user :D
8Man if only i could be one of you, i keep getting "aborted" when trying to parch T-T
2Check this if all else fail https://github.com/revanced-apks/build-apps
2
/r/place was super bandwidth intensive. They managed to turn each individual pixel change into several KB of data.
6I didn't even place or follow r/place changes. Just go on there, look at memes and how the map has evolved since.
But still just moving around is very bandwidth intensive.
2
No video is fantastic method to minimise bandwidth usage and strain. Video astronomically scales up in file size compared to anything else, with audio (64kbps OPUS) and images (80% quality JPEGs or WEBMs or GIFs) being orders of magnitude smaller.
2GIFs are way bigger for the same length vs video because they're basically just a series of full images, whereas videos include the diff between frames.
But the rest is absolutely correct.
1Incorrect, GIFs have a lot less frames than 24/30/60 frames per second, and are usually 4-8x smaller than 1080p video resolution. In case you are referring to the smart frame-based compression in videos with H.265/AV1, those cannot be embedded into webpages to be played the way GIFs can be treated like JPGs. The web still relies on H.264 for video embedding due to its decent compression and no decoding effect on battery life of any device, no matter a Pi, phone or laptop.
-6
Not necessarily the best comparison if it's just aggressively caching. The real comparison to make is analytics tracking events and other evil things like random battery hungry background tasks
2Quality over quantity.
1