One of the assumptions made by this article is that the user in question is loading your web page with jQuery on a mobile device running on a 4G network. In reality, however, it is unlikely that a user will be on a 4G network. In 2004, the 4G penetration is 25% in North America, and only 3% in Western Europe. [1] It's certainly growing on a yearly basis, but it's still not at the point where you can rely on users having 4G speeds on a mobile device.
The 4G worst-case scenario is still better than the best-case scenario for a 3G network, which is what you'll see with a majority of users. I'd like to see this analysis done with a 3G connection as well, because I suspect the real jQuery tax for a majority of mobile users is over a second.
I do like the point made about latency and the suggestions at the bottom of the article. It's a strong incentive for apps to introduce a real asset pipeline and js and css minifiers.
4G and 3G often falls back to Edge (or even GPRS with bad latency) in Europe. And with Edge you better make sure your JS file is smaller than 200kb (for a web app), otherwise your mobile user with Edge connection will have to wait some seconds (load time). jQuery itself is already 81kb (compressed).
1Mbsp == "worst mobile networks"? Maybe if your website is a social network for US millionaires :-P. What if your visitors are from around the world? Here in Croatia, we don't even have 3G in some parts of the country.
The 4G worst-case scenario is still better than the best-case scenario for a 3G network, which is what you'll see with a majority of users. I'd like to see this analysis done with a 3G connection as well, because I suspect the real jQuery tax for a majority of mobile users is over a second.
I do like the point made about latency and the suggestions at the bottom of the article. It's a strong incentive for apps to introduce a real asset pipeline and js and css minifiers.
[1] http://graphics.wsj.com/4g-european-investment/