I&#x27;m face-palming at your comment, and I&#x27;ll take the bait.<p>Firstly, there is no such thing as &quot;retina quality video&quot;. If you mean 4K, then say 4K. &quot;Retina&quot; is Apple marketing spin for their high density displays that you seem to be using to describe a standard of video. More to the point, websites are not pre-loading 4K video that is counted towards page weight.<p>To your claims about needing bootstrap for presenting a page on small to large screens. There are numerous easy methods for making a site readable on small and large screens that don&#x27;t require shoving layout frameworks in and relying on them to make things look good. Learn HTML. Learn CSS.<p>&gt; <i>&quot;Being wasteful is a minor problem&quot;</i><p>That statement would be great as an ironic t-shirt, but otherwise is yet another facepalm.<p>&gt; <i>&quot;everyone has fast broadband&quot;</i><p>Great news. With that assumption out of the way, we can get on with pre-loading retina video and throwing page-weight caution to the wind.<p>&gt; <i>&quot;Everything is cached&quot;</i><p>The utopian world you live in sounds great, but mobile devices are known to be very bad at both long term resource caching and short term memory caching - as in multiple open browser tabs.<p>The point of the article is that even basic articles are bloated whales that waste precious bandwidth on mobile. On desktop, common sense design is replaced with &quot;touch friendly mobile-first impressionism&quot; for actually <i>less</i> accessibility. When spinning globe videos and 2000 pixel auto-playing slideshow presentations in a vast landscape with hamburger menu in corner is considered the &quot;modern web&quot;, we need to take a hard look at what modern should be.<p>The improved functionality you&#x27;re talking about does not need to mean bloat or excessive amounts of data to drive simple things on websites.