Comment by jacobgkau

> In general, it's a behavior that seems to come from the fairly widespread mid-2010s UX theory that it's better to degrade service or even freeze entirely than to show a loading screen of some kind.

> It's the same kind of thought process that led to the YouTube mobile app getting an unskippable splash screen animation last year; to the average person, it feels like the app loads much faster now. It doesn't, of course, it's just firing off the home page requests in the background while the locally available animation plays, but the user sees a thing rather than a blank screen while it loads, which tricks the brain into thinking it's loading faster.

So they decided it's better to show lower-quality content (or not update the screen) than a loading screen, and it's the same school of thought that led to a loading screen being implemented? I agree both examples could be seen as intended to make things "feel" faster, but it seems like two different philosophies towards that.

(Also, I remember when quality changes didn't take effect immediately, but I've been seeing them take effect immediately and discard the buffer for at least the past few years-- at least when going from "Auto" that it always selects for me to the highest-available quality.)