[jpdb]

Web performance is probably/mostly valued as efficiently as it needs to be.

The numbers mentioned in the article are...quite egregious.

> Oh, Just 2.4 Megabytes. Out of a chonky 4 MB payload. Assuming they could rebuild the site to hit Alex Russell's target of 450 KB, that's conservatively $435,000,000 per year. Not too bad. And this is likely a profound underestimation of the real gain

This is not a "profound underestimation." Not by several orders of magnitude. Kroger is not going save anywhere even remotely close to $435 million dollars by reducing their js bundle size.

Kroger had $3.6-$3.8 billion in allocated capex in the year of 2024. There is no shot javascript bundle size is ~9% of their *total* allocated capex.

I work with a number of companies of similar size and their entire cloud spend isn't $435,000,000 -- and bandwidth (or even networking all up) isn't in their time 10 line items.

A leak showed that Walmart spent $580m a year on Azure: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/walmart-spent-580...

These numbers are so insanely inflated, I think the author needs to rethink their entire premise.

[StopVibeCoding]

it's not just their direct cost, it's also the loss of revenue. the author wasn't arguing that they could save 435 million dollars in server costs.

Instead they were arguing that in addition to saving maybe a million or two in server costs, they would gain an additional 435 million dollars in revenue because less people would leave their website

[nchmy]

Bizarre that this had to be spelled out...