You’d think “it’s easier for many phones to render PUBG than modern websites” would be an industry-wide wake-up call, but. https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/modern-web-bloat-means-some-entry-level-phones-cant-run-simple-web-pages-and-load-times-are-high-for-pcs-some-sites-run-worse-than-pubg
Modern web bloat means some pages load 21MB of data - entry-level phones can't run some simple web pages, and some sites are harder to render than PUBG

Danluu benchmarks numerous websites and discusses their impact on older and/or weaker hardware

Tom's Hardware

@beep this thing -> https://upstash.com/ consumes 50mb+ heap size on startup , to display a static landing page.

For youtube, it is consistently 100mb+, for google, it is again 50mb.

Upstash: Serverless Data Platform

Designed for the serverless with per-request pricing and Redis®/Kafka® API.

Upstash: Serverless Data Platform
@nrk9819 fyi, heap size ≠ amount of downloaded data to render the page
@mystie the argument is neither about data transferred either, it is about "performance" and "resource consumption", as related to the original post. I'm fully aware that heap size has nothing to do with files downloaded to render the page. But the gist of my comment remains the same, rendering a static page shouldn't consume 50mb+ heap memory. In a ideal scenario, a static page should be statically generated, not client rendered.