![Cover image for DON'T add a video background to your landing page to make it more gorgeous [TW: gratuitous swearing]](https://media.dev.to/cdn-cgi/image/width=1000,height=420,fit=cover,gravity=auto,format=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2Fqfb222g53x3aa7o8kxar.jpg)
I said I wasn't going to do angry rants anymore. I really did try. But fuck me people are still creating tutorials on how to create video backgroun...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
I picked the most extreme article to prove a point.
But you are correct if this were a journalistic piece about the climate impact of data transmission I would deserve to be shot. 🤣
In reality the more accurate figure in a country that is fibre based, uses renewable energy in the data centres and has modern exchanges on most of its network would be about 75 times less than that (e.g. UK, Germany etc). On a country utilising copper wires and old tech (of which there are plenty) the figure is actually on the low side.
As for the physics part that is nonsense, you could easily use physics to prove that transmission costs could be multitudes higher if the wrong medium for transmission was used and depending on the distance due to losses to heat etc. If you have to boost the signal 50 times between the server and the end client there can be massive costs.
A better argument would have been money as @miketalbot said, it would be easy to work out that 5kwh / GB would bankrupt most companies. Yet again though, depends on the Country and infrastructure so we can’t make sweeping claims.
I remember spending a summer holiday on an island with limited internet connectivity and, back then, a limited data plan where everything above 1 MB data transfer per month became quite costly. And at that time, there were extra charges to pay if you dared to use your phone and mobile internet outside of your home country.
Near the beach bar, I saw a poster announcing a live concert by some local singer and wanted to check their website to see if there were any upcoming gigs around our place. The musician's website featured their current music video which started to play automatically. Soon, the music stopped. And so did my data plan.
Never went to see the artists (not due to the website, but probably didn't fancy their music) but I still remember the story!
Cool where was the island?
not sure ;-) either Sardegna or Corsica, one of them was where my data plan ran out, the other one where I was offline 2 weeks on purpose ... some years ago obviously
Obviously, we all know it is impossible to be offline for 2 hours nowadays never mind 2 whole weeks! 🤣
I totally can relate with 2 of the above problems, costly data in India and also disabilities in my family. Great that you are raising awareness (even if in a silly way :D)
Nice cover image 🤣
The cover image is a little hint towards the article that inspired my rant if it appears a bit random!
Saying that the title is only one word different so I am sure the cover image was overkill! 🤣
I agree, the paper (not sure it is peer reviewed) that the linked article refers to implies that watching a movie costs $1.54 in energy in 2012. God knows what this would do to the business model of Google and Facebook et al with their streaming video ads and 1bn impression content. If this were true, surely there must be a huge amount of quantitive easing in the energy market to invent the money for this as otherwise no internet company would be viable.
I think that the potentially dodgy math shouldn't diminish the point that efficiency in data transmission is an important topic in reducing carbon emissions and we should seek to do this. I would argue that it is more likely that we are being efficient using the Internet to watch movies compared to the process of making physical things out of plastic as a delivery device, that notwithstanding transmitting unnecessary data must have an impact on some scale.
As always a nice and balanced response!
As I said the amount in a Country with modern architecture the actually amount is somewhere around 45g of CO2 per GB so far less impact than I made it appear!
It would be super interesting that if we ignored plastic waste whether a blue ray was better for the environment than streaming in 4K in terms of CO2, what a great idea for an article!
You are right, after looking at more articles rather than the first one that shows up it is about $54000 (can’t find official figures so if there are some they would be great!).
I will correct that now!
Lmfao I completely forgot I had put her in the cover 🤣🤣. That is a proper face palm moment! 🤣
😭
I hope you all have a great weekend, if you have an example of a site using a video background that doesn't need it or where it ruins contrast etc. then let me know in the comments.
So are you an expert in online marketing and conversion rates?
I know enough to be dangerous but wouldn’t call myself an expert by any means! 😜
Certainly know a lot about performance and it’s impact on conversions though if you need info on that.
Why you asking?
Can you review my Portfolio bhagyamudgal.me
That very much depends, do you want "a review" where I look at your site and give you a few pointers and tips to improve it.
Or do you want "A REVIEW" where I pick apart every tiny little thing that isn't absolutely perfect with the site and trash you to within an inch of your life making you wonder why you ever thought you wanted to become a developer? (same as this article, anger is for fun!)
Happy to do either, if you are brave enough to go for the second option I will do a whole article on it...but it will be brutal 🤣!
I want a genuine review so I am ok with 2nd option.
Sorry I might be being slow but who is Taylor?
Wondering how much CO2 is being consumed by Youtube :-D
🤣