I remember the YouTube feather opt-in being spread by word of mouth at the time by folk in the tech community on fast connections. People really care about this stuff and the only reliable way to know is by engaging them directly.
I remember the YouTube feather opt-in being spread by word of mouth at the time by folk in the tech community on fast connections. People really care about this stuff and the only reliable way to know is by engaging them directly.
By the sounds of it, though, it was a net loss for Google, which is why the page is still so big. Much of the code might have been irrelevant (even harmful) for the end user, but was necessary for Google's business model.
So a side-learning ignored by the article is that there are more types of stakeholder than just the end users, especially in applications that are free (as in beer) at the point of use. And more stakeholders means more complex solutions. And more complex solutions typically mean more code and bigger pages.