←back to thread

98 points thunderbong | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
pavlov ◴[] No.42479172[source]
> “HTTP is also too inefficient for wireless use. By using a semantically equivalent, but binary and compressed format it is possible to reduce the protocol overhead to a few bytes per request, instead of up to hundreds of bytes.”

Around the turn of the millennium, there were numerous international committees and hundreds of millions of dollars spent by companies on this idea that we simply can’t use the existing internet on mobile phones, so there needs to be something else.

Of course for the companies it was mostly a plot to capture the web, which was uncomfortably open and uncontrolled. The mobile operators were used to charging 20 cents for sending a 140-character message and 1 euro for delivering a monophonic ringtone. They wanted to be the gatekeepers and content curators of the mobile web, taking a cut on every bit of content that flows to devices. (I remember vision PowerPoints where operators imagined that one day when video can be watched on mobile phones, they’d be making more money from each watch than the studios.)

“We must save 200 bytes on HTTP headers or the network will melt!” was just a convenient excuse to build a stack they could own end-to-end.

replies(7): >>42479197 #>>42479224 #>>42479250 #>>42479283 #>>42479399 #>>42479951 #>>42481549 #
diggan ◴[] No.42479197[source]
I don't know if you tried to use the web via 3G or even GPRS, but I remember I did, and it was terribly slow. Opera Mini/Mobile ran some sort of proxy service that made things faster (not sure how or what that was, I was too young to understand anything) and helped a little bit, but the best thing you could come across was dedicated WAP websites that basically were "website lite" versions some websites ran concurrently with their real websites.

And even so, loading a 0.1MB WAP website still took time. The pipes were really slow back then, and the devices not being like the pocket computers we have today.

> The mobile operators were used to charging 20 cents for sending a 140-character message.

In Sweden when I was young, it was pretty common for us to have monthly plans with unlimited text messages included (but not surfing, no one did that on the phone anyways). Even with that, WAP seemed to have served some sort of purpose, at least for me personally.

replies(4): >>42479245 #>>42479287 #>>42479638 #>>42481879 #
rollcat ◴[] No.42479638[source]
> Opera Mini/Mobile ran some sort of proxy service that made things faster [...]

In 2017ish, I've overheard from a friend who used to work for Opera, that back in their time they were using Presto (their in-house engine) on the backend to pre-render/optimise/compress pages. Think smart VPN/proxy.

Also, heck yes, Opera on "dumb" phones was an amazing experience - compared to the built-in contemporary browsers.

replies(1): >>42479671 #
lxgr ◴[] No.42479671[source]
This was how I browsed the web on the go for the better part of a decade, before browser became good enough and prices (and download times) per megabyte cheap/fast enough to actually use the full web on mobile devices.

It was absolutely amazing. And it's still around! I have an install on my iPhone; while the app seems to be unpublished in most western countries' App Store, I can still use it just fine. I believe the Android and J2ME versions are still actively installable.

Although I just gave it a try, and the iOS version seems to not be the real deal anymore; it seems to use a media compression proxy and regular WebKit to render on the iOS side. The Android version still does server-side rendering.

replies(1): >>42481779 #
1. anthk ◴[] No.42481779{3}[source]
At https://f-droid.org you have a J2ME emulator.
replies(1): >>42482662 #
2. lxgr ◴[] No.42482662[source]
I've also tried that with J2ME Loader (which is also on the Play Store), and itw works! But the native Android version still works for me as well.