I've had a contractor compress a video to be used in an app we're developing and while the video plays just fine on a 3G device, artifacts appear when watched on a 2G device. Why would this be? The 2G device is a 3.1.3 version.
Asked
Active
Viewed 141 times
1 Answers
0
Probably has to do with a mixture of network speed and hardware. Take a look at wired's comparison: http://www.wired.com/reviews/2011/02/verizon-iphone/
Same exact phone, but since ATT's network is faster, the Verizon phone plays a less quality video.
It's probably going to be difficult to get a good looking video over 2G. Also, is it even worth it? How many phones are still 2G? I can't imagine that many.

Jamie R Rytlewski
- 1,172
- 9
- 22
-
Thanks. In general you're right about not many 2G phones around compared to 3 and 4, but we have a substantial 2G audience using our app and we're wanting to update with more vids without excluding them. – Noah Feb 11 '11 at 23:35
-
I'm curious as to what is substantial. The 2G phone is over 3.5 years old and was discontinued over 2.5 years ago. Most people upgrade every 2 years. So even at the end of its product cycle, they phone should be outdated. Just for my own curiosity what is substantial? I know on our sites/apps we have about 1% of 2G use. – Jamie R Rytlewski Feb 12 '11 at 04:57
-
We've got about 2.2% of 2G use. Perhaps substantial isn't the word I should have used, however in real terms it's a fairly large number of people. – Noah Feb 12 '11 at 22:19
-
Jamie, would you suggest 2.2% not being enough to worry about? It's a few thousand people. Compared to the rest, yes, it's small. But to exclude them... do you think it would be a bad move or a necessary one? I'm not sure, myself. – Noah Feb 13 '11 at 09:45
-
Where I work we are government funded and we do not have to support anything that has less than 10% usage. The 2.2% of your people that are using 2G are costing you more money than necessary. You have to look at it from a ROI (Return on Investment). Is the time you are putting into this worth the headaches and the time for just the 2.2%. I know that up until recently we had to support IE6 & 7, now those are less than 10%, so we tell people they need to upgrade. I say it's a necessary move to exclude them. Having to make an inferior product (lower quality video) for 2.2% is not fair to 97.8% – Jamie R Rytlewski Feb 19 '11 at 20:49