Granted. It is, however, the worst case scenario as quoted from a marketing piece that's going to render itself in the best light.
According to DDG the average time for a blink is between 100-400 ms. Okay, maybe they blinked a few times. You're taking on a large complexity problem for the difference between one and a few blinks - and that's in the worst case scenario, which for most applications can probably be ameliorated with pre-loading assets.
I'm just not seeing the user-value here. At least not compared to the investment required to adopt more complex architecture and the problems that involves - if your IO really does occur on those sorts of timeframes, (e.g. if you're doing meaningful things at sub 900ms, how are you dealing with race conditions in this distributed architecture? If you're not dealing with race conditions, and have an effectively static set of data that you're just pushing, why aren't you dealing with that via pre-loading the assets?)
That stuff's gotta be paid for. Do you think the difference between one blink or... I dunno, let's be generous and say four - I think if I blinked four times it might take longer than a second, mostly due to the delay between blinks - constitutes a competitive edge sufficient to offset the cost?
944.14ms - that's the worst case stated on the time to first byte for conventional architecture. That's not bad. Will your user notice it? Probably not for most applications and the ones that they do you can probably cache that locally.
There are performance limited applications - e.g. stock trading - but in those you're talking about choosing specific processors and disabling certain caching approaches to increase the performance that you want, choosing certain network switches, using microwave transmitters where existing physical infrastructure doesn't serve your needs... like fast is _fast_... and people pay for that in expertise and infrastructure.
Will your users pay for cutting your response time from 944.14ms to 45ms? And the additional complexity that comes with?
In some cases the answer is, in all honesty, yes - yes they will. And they'll pay you for every additional fraction of a second it takes light to go from the top of the Empire State building to the bottom, if it gets their trade in first.
More generally, however, your users probably aren't interested in delays measured in less than the time it takes them to blink. How fast is your ballpoint pen? Do you care? To your user's use case, it's all either categorised as instant or something you have to wait for.
According to DDG the average time for a blink is between 100-400 ms. Okay, maybe they blinked a few times. You're taking on a large complexity problem for the difference between one and a few blinks - and that's in the worst case scenario, which for most applications can probably be ameliorated with pre-loading assets.
I'm just not seeing the user-value here. At least not compared to the investment required to adopt more complex architecture and the problems that involves - if your IO really does occur on those sorts of timeframes, (e.g. if you're doing meaningful things at sub 900ms, how are you dealing with race conditions in this distributed architecture? If you're not dealing with race conditions, and have an effectively static set of data that you're just pushing, why aren't you dealing with that via pre-loading the assets?)
That stuff's gotta be paid for. Do you think the difference between one blink or... I dunno, let's be generous and say four - I think if I blinked four times it might take longer than a second, mostly due to the delay between blinks - constitutes a competitive edge sufficient to offset the cost?