I think it ends up neutral or slightly positive. If your site developers have got rid of the old HTTP/1.x antipatterns (separate FQDN for static resources, FQDN sharding, etc), turning on HTTP/2 will probably be a net win. Easily enough to cancel out the added cost of mandatory TLS?
But just adopting HTTP/2 won't help anywhere near as much as a couple of hours optimising your app to work at a very basic, conservative level with a content delivery network... John On 2 April 2017 at 01:14, Nicolai <nicolai-om...@chocolatine.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 03:04:50AM +1100, bytevolc...@safe-mail.net wrote: > > > The benefits are there, but I feel it encourages lazy and disorganized > > web development, leading to stupidly bloated and inefficient sites, > > HTTP/2 multiplexing is only "effective" when web designers have built > websites without lots of 3rd party content, so IMO HTTP/2 discourages > (this kind of) bloat. That said, modern web design is in a pretty bad > state. I don't think web designers have any idea what they're doing, so > in effect HTTP/2 won't lead to better websites. What needs to happen is > for Google to punish bloated websites. THAT will get people to care. > > Nicolai
