> On Mar 31, 2015, at 9:42 AM, Roger Hågensen <rh_wha...@skuldwyrm.no> wrote: > > Would not a ad delivery network prefer not to have to push ads out that the > user is not seeing at all? > If not then they are only wasting bandwidth/CPU/memory on the server, and > causing impressions that are wasted on nothing (important for the advertisers > since they pay for them). > > It's not throttling, it's proper use of resources. And while a ad network can > not be guaranteed there are eyeballs on the ad, they can at least be assured > that the ad is visible.
There’s a strong motivation to reduce usage of the ad network’s resources. I’m less confident that ad networks will rush to opt in to this feature just to reduce usage of CPU and battery on end users’ machines, and that’s really what the feature is about. That said, “autopause” is an interesting idea! If changing the Page Visibility spec turns out to not be web compatible, a feature like “autopause” seems like a good alternative. > And I already mentioned video and audio (if autopause is taken beyond just > iframes). I think this would be great, and would definitely solve a common issue on pages that embed lots of media. - Seth
