Author: Kimberley DERUDDER

Kimberley DERUDDER has been marketing and communication officer at GREENSPECTOR for more than 3 years. Kimberley graduated with a master's degree in Marketing - Communication and specialized in Inbound Marketing after her first two years at GREENSPECTOR. Today in charge of the animation of the marketing, social media and lead generation strategy, she also takes care of app comparisons and battles.

Greenspector wins the “Digital Sobriety Award” at the Mobility for Business 20

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Greenspector took part for the fourth consecutive year at Mobility for Business 2021. On the occasion of this exhibition dedicated to mobile solutions and applications, Greenspector won the “Digital Sobriety Award” of the Mobility Awards.

The Mobility Awards aim to distinguish the best achievements, the best products and the most innovative approaches to professional mobility. This award recognises our achievement: the Digital Sobriety Certificate.

The Greenspector team is proud to receive this award, which recognises the excellence of our solutions for a more responsible digital world, which have been adopted by our customers for several years now. The context of business mobility is particularly close to our hearts. Adopting a digital sobriety approach in this context means meeting CSR challenges. But it also contributes to performance (faster business applications, satisfaction of agents in the field), and it enables savings (more durable terminals have a lower TCO). Everyone wins: the environment, the users, and the IT department’s budget,” says Thomas Corvaisier, CEO of Greenspector.

What is the Greenspector’s Digital Sobriety Certificate?

Greenspector’s Digital Sobriety Certificate rewards the eco-responsibility of companies on consumer or business applications that have proven their good level of sobriety.

In particular, it ensures that the application’s resource consumption on the terminal is compatible with the business challenges: battery life, application speed, CO2 footprint. The certificate thus makes it possible to reward progress and encourage internal and external teams to produce more energy-efficient applications.

Greenspector’s Digital Sobriety Certificate already adopted by our customers:

Do you want to evaluate the level of sobriety and performance of your (mobile or web) application? Please contact us!

What is the environmental footprint for social media applications? 2021 Edition

Reading Time: 4 minutes

The use of social networking-type mobile applications is increasing every year. Like the professional use of videoconferencing tools, these uses have put additional pressure on the network and the servers of these solutions.

How do the players take the environmental impact into account in their strategy? What are the impacts of our activities on social networks? What are the most/least impacting solutions for the environment, network congestion and the autonomy of our smartphones?

For this study, we chose to measure the news feed of the 10 most popular social media applications: Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Twitch, Twitter, and Youtube. These applications are different in terms of functionality. We have chosen to compare them in terms of carbon impact, consumption of energy and data exchanged.

For each of its applications, measured on an S7 smartphone (Android 8), the scenario for scrolling the news feed was carried out through our Greenspector Test Runner, allowing manual tests to be carried out over 1 minute in one-to-one. Learn more about the methodology and How does Greenspector assess the environmental footprint of digital service use.

Projected ranking in the carbon impact of social network applications newsfeed (g EqCO2)

ApplicationThe carbon impact of newsfeed/min2021 Rank2020 EvolutionWater ResourceLand Use
Youtube0.46 gEqCO2/min1=0.08 Liters0.92 m²
Twitch0.55 gEqCO2/min2+30.09 Liters1.01 m²
Twitter0.60 gEqCO2/min3 +1 0.10 Liters1.14 m²
LinkedIn0.71 gEqCO2/min4-10.10 Liters1.00 m²
Facebook0.79 gEqCO2/min5-30.12 Liters1.38 m²
Snapchat0.87 gEqCO2/min6+10.12 Liters1.29 m²
Instagram1.05 gEqCO2/min7-10.12 Liters1.03 m²
Pinterest1.30 gEqCO2/min8=0.15 Liters1.25 m²
Reddit2.48 gEqCO2/min9=0.23 Liters1.35 m²
TikTok2.63 gEqCO2/min10=0.27 Liters1.88 m²

According to the Global Web Index July 2021, we spend an average of 2 hours and 24 minutes on social networks, i.e. +2 minutes compared to 2019. If we project the average carbon impact of the 10 applications measured (1.15 gEqCO2) out of 60 seconds to the average time spent per user, we obtain for one user/day: 165.6 gEqCO2. It is the equivalent of 1.4 km in a light vehicle. It also corresponds to 60 kgEqCO2 per user per year, or the equivalent of 535 km travelled in an average light vehicle in France. It is equivalent to 1% of the carbon impact of a French (7 Tons).

In May 2021, the number of active users of social networks stood at 4.33 billion (55.1% of the world population), or + 35% compared to 2019. 99% access social networks on a mobile device. 80% of the time (2 hours and 24 minutes) on social networks is spent on a mobile device. If we project our carbon/user impact to these data, we obtain 262 million Tons EqCO2 per year for the 4.33 billion mobile users, i.e. the equivalent of 0.61% of the EqCO2 impacts in the world in 2019 and more than half of France’s carbon emissions (56%).

Energy consumption of social media applications newsfeed (mAh)

ApplicationEnergy Consumption of newsfeed/min2021 Rank 2020 Evolution
Youtube8.58 mAh1=
Instagram8.9 mAh2+5
LinkedIn8.92 mAh3-1
Twitch9.05 mAh4-1
Twitter10.28 mAh5+1
Pinterest10.83 mAh6+2
Reddit11.04 mAh7-4
Snapchat11.48 mAh8+2
Facebook12.36 mAh9-5
TikTok15.81 mAh10-1

When it comes to energy consumption, the news feeds for Snapchat, Facebook and TikTok apps are the worst performers. Good students on the energy side are Youtube, Instagram and LinkedIn. The TikTok news feed here consumes 1.8 times more power than Youtube‘s.

The average established for energy consumption is 10.73 mAh or + 1.2% compared to our 2020 ranking.

Data exchanged from social network applications newsfeed (MB)

ApplicationExchanged Data on newsfeed/min2021 Rank2020 Evolution
Youtube3.09 MB1=
Twitter6.28 MB2+2
Twitch6.87 MB3+2
Facebook11.15 MB4-2
LinkedIn15.34 MB5-2
Snapchat17.26 MB6+1
Instagram32.46 MB7-1
Pinterest40.65 MB8=
TikTok96.23 MB9+1
Reddit100 MB10-1

In terms of the exchanged data, the bad guys are the news feeds of the Reddit, TikTok and Pinterest apps. The good students in terms of data exchanged are Youtube, Twitter and Twitch. Reddit consumes 32 times more data than the Youtube app.

The average established for the data exchanged is 32.93 MB for this use, or 71% more compared to the 2020 edition. Only 3 applications are above this threshold. Watch out for your data plans! Projection in 1 month, you will have consumed 142 Go!

Taking into account the average time spent on the social networks according to the Visionary Marketing blog: if you only use Tik Tok (up to 52 minutes per projected day), you will consume nearly 149 GB per month. While Instagram (up to 53 minutes per day) will make you consume 51 GB! Are you more into Facebook? It will make you consume nearly 19 GB (up to 58 minutes per day) per month.

Pour chacune de ses applications, mesurées sur un smartphone S7 (Android 8), le scénario suivant a été réalisé au travers de notre Greenspector Test Runner, permettant la réalisation de tests manuels sur une durée de 1 minute en one-to-one.

  • Launch the application (wait 20 seconds)
  • Scroll through the news feed or the “Discover” tab of the applications
ApplicationVersionDownloadsGoogle Playstore Grade
YouTube16.40.3510 000 000 000+4,3
LinkedIn4.1.627.1500 000 000+4,3
Reddit2021.41.050 000 000+4,3
Facebook340.0.0.27.1135 000 000 000+2,6
Twitch11.7.0100 000 000+4,5
Twitter9.16.11 000 000 000+3,5
Instagram210.0.0.28.711 000 000 000+3,8
Pinterest9.35.0500 000 000+4,6
TikTok21.6.51 000 000 000+4,4
Snapchat11.50.0.291 000 000 000+4,2

Each measurement is the average of 3 homogeneous measurements (with a low standard deviation). The measured consumption on the smartphone according to a wifi type network can be different on a laptop PC with a wired network. For each of the iterations, the cache is first emptied.

Discover how does Greenspector assess the environmental footprint of digital service use .

Catch Greenspector at Mobility for Business on November 9-10!

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Greenspector will showcase at Mobility for Business 2021, the French event dedicated to mobile solutions and applications.

For the fourth year in a row, Greenspector is a partner and exhibitor of the event, which brings together more than 3,000 professionals around the theme of mobility.

Many round tables, thematic workshops and business meetings are organized to connect the actors and experts but also to exchange and promote the ecosystem of professional mobility.

We will introduce our innovative solution and expert services dedicated to the sobriety and performances of mobile and web applications, and their perks in terms of device battery life and user experience. The opportunity to discover the latest major features.

Our interventions:

Speaker: Thomas CORVAISIER, CEO of Greenspector

Come and meet us on-site at booth E11 from November 9 to 10, we will answer all your questions. Do not hesitate to contact us now and schedule an appointment.

Useful information:
When? 9 – 10 November 2021
Where? Porte de Versailles (Hall 5/1), Paris

Lydia vs Pumpkin

Reading Time: 3 minutes

For this first battle of 2021, we compare two payment applications between relatives: Lydia and Pumpkin. The advantage of these applications? Immediate repayment between friends in just a few clicks via a phone number. No more need to go through the traditional tedious steps of collecting an IBAN, adding it to a list of beneficiaries and the action of a transfer order (which will sometimes be received within 48 hours). Let’s find out together which application has the least carbon impact and the least consumption for your smartphone.

About Lydia: Created in 2011 this French fintech specializes in mobile payment and allows its users to pay and manage their money from the application.

About Pumpkin: Created in 2014 the French application offers payment between relatives and recently allows its users to take advantage of cashback.

The fight

All the spotlights are on the fighters, and the match can finally begin.

In the first part of the battle to measure the impact of the launch phase of the application, on this side, Lydia (0,104 g eqCO2) wins the first round by impacting 2% less than the Pumpkin application (0,106 g eqCO2).

During the second round which corresponds to the usage scenario, collecting a payment, Lydia takes the lead (0.181 g eqCO2) which leads against Pumpkin (0.314 g eqCO2) with a 42% lower carbon impact.

To put an end to this confrontation, we have set up two decisive rounds of observation of the rest phases of each opponent. If the Pumpkin application earns points by showing an 8% lower carbon impact for the foreground inactivity phase compared to Lydia, it is the most impacting on the background inactivity phase by 4%.

The bell rings, end of the match!

The winner

The Lydia app wins this match.

If we add the Carbon Impacts of all the scenarios measured, the Lydia application leads with a 26% lower carbon impact than the Pumpkin application.

Several answers can explain the differences in impact and energy and data consumption: Pumpkin presents several additional screens compared to Lydia:

  • Security screen at launch (pin code)
  • Contact directory synchronization pop-up during payment collection scenario
  • Animation during the confirmation of validation of the transaction
  • The news feed on the home page

For those who like numbers

ApplicationsVersionDownloadsPlaystore GradeApp weight
Lydia10.101 000 000+3,8112MB
Pumpkin5.19.0500 000+4,5119MB

For each of these applications, measured on an S7 smartphone (Android 8), the measurements were carried out through our GREENSPECTOR Benchmark Runner, allowing automated tests to be carried out.

Details of the scenarios:

  • Loading the application
  • Foreground application inactivity
  • Background application inactivity
  • User scenario: collecting a payment (30 seconds)

Each measurement is the average of 5 homogeneous measurements (with a low standard deviation). The consumption measured on the given smartphone according to a Wi-Fi type network can be different on a laptop PC with a wired network. For each of the iterations, the cache is first emptied.

To assess the impacts of infrastructures (datacenter, network) in the carbon projection calculations, we relied on the Greenspector methodology based on real data measured from the volume of data exchanged. This evaluation methodology takes into account the consumption of resources and energy in use for the requested equipment. As this is a very macroscopic approach, it is subject to uncertainty and could be refined to adapt to a given context, to a given tool. For the Carbon projection, we assumed a 50% projection via a Wi-Fi network and 50% via a mobile network.

To assess the impacts of the mobile in the carbon projection calculations, we measure the energy consumption of the user scenario on a real device and to integrate the material impact share, we rely on the theoretical wear rate generated by the user scenario on the battery, the first wearing part of a smartphone. 500 full charge and discharge cycles, therefore, cause a change of smartphone in our model. This methodology and method of calculation have been validated by the consulting firm specializing in eco-design, Evea.

What’s new? Greenspector release note v.2.10.0

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Greenspector team is proud to announce its latest release v.2.10.0.

With this release, you can now monitor your phone during your working day in the field. With a new application installed on your android phone, you can start monitoring, do your normal job, stop the monitoring. You can then retrieve the results and analyze the metrics. This tool may be useful to understand the behaviour of all your professional applications installed on your phone (energy leaks, memory leaks…)

Collect metrics coming from devices used in the field

  1. Measuring a demo application (contact list)
  2. Our Greenspector app allows you to start the measurement (start measure)
  3. Or stop it (stop measure)
  4. You can send the measures and visualize the metrics to the web interface
  5. Or generate a CVS file with all the metrics

What’s new? Greenspector release note v.2.9.0

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Greenspector team is proud to announce its latest release v.2.9.0.

To measure application and website consumption, you can run user journeys on our smartphone farms. In this context, we have improved our simplified test language (GDSL) with, for example, features for preparing browsers but also taking Firefox into account… Unlike many tools that provide you with an environmental impact only on the main page and on simulated environments, these capabilities will allow you to assess and monitor the impact of your digital solution!

API Swagger for existing routes applications
You can now easily switch browser

Greenspector partner alongside Atos – EcoAct for ChangeNOW and its digital edition (May 27-29)

Reading Time: 2 minutes

ChangeNOW, the largest gathering of innovations for the planet, will be held this year in a 100% digital format from May 27 to 29, 2021. For 3 days, the summit highlights the most concrete and innovative solutions: more than 1000 solutions, 500 speakers and 120 countries united to face the greatest environmental and climatic challenges.

Greenspector will exhibit its unique and innovative solution to measure/analyze the consumption of digital services. For this 2021 edition, Greenspector has signed a partnership with ChangeNow and EcoAct. Greenspector will carry out an estimate of the carbon footprint of the event alongside EcoAct, a long-standing player in the fight against climate change.

For this purpose, Greenspector will measure the energy and resources consumption of the event’s web and mobile platform and will also estimate the carbon impact of the websites of all event partners. These measurements, carried out on real devices using the Greenspector Test Runner tool, will be accessible on our website in the form of dashboards or rankings to the various stakeholders of the event.

Climate change, resources, biodiversity and inclusion are the greatest challenges of our century. The ChangeNOW Summit is a unique opportunity to connect with investors, media, corporations, institutions and talents that can support your projects and make them scale to accelerate change.

As a partner of ChangeNOW, Greenspector is proud to offer you a 30% reduction for the purchase of a business pass with the code: GREENSPECTORNOW2021.

Which video conferencing mobile application to reduce your impact? 2021 Edition

Reading Time: 6 minutes

For this new 2021 edition of our ranking, we have completed our 2020 study with new solutions and even extended it to web solutions. The objective of these measures is to see how the solutions stand in terms of environmental impact (Carbon) with each other on common user scenarios but also to provide benchmarks on our uses of videoconferencing.

So this time we compared 19 mobile applications: Big Blue Button, BlueJeans, Circuit by Unify, Cisco Webex Meetings, ClickMeeting, Go To Meeting, Discord, Google Meet, Infomaniak kMeet, Jitsi, Pexip, Rainbow, Skype, StarLeaf, Microsoft Teams, Tixeo, WhereBy, Zoho Meeting et Zoom.

For each of its applications, measured on an S7 smartphone (Android 8), the following three scenarios were carried out through our Greenspector Test Runner, allowing manual tests to be carried out over a period of 1 minute in one-to-one:

  • Audio conference only
  • Audio + video conference (camera activated on each side)
  • Audio and screen sharing conference

Learn more about the methodology.

Projected carbon impact ranking of videoconferencing applications (gEqCO2)

Here are the impact averages for the three scenarios:

User scenario / Year1 mn of audio conference1 min of audio + video conference1 min of audio + screen sharing conference
20210.155 gEqCO20.403 gEqCO20.163 gEqCO2

1,38 meters made in a light vehicle3,6 meters made in a light vehicle1,46 meters made in a light vehicle
20200.102 gEqCO20.289 gEqCO20.121 gEqCO2

On average, one minute of audio-video conferencing impacts 61% less (or 2.6 times less) than with activated cameras and 5% less than when sharing a screen. According to our recent study on the impact of streaming a MyCanal video, on average, one hour of video streaming corresponds to an impact of 14g eqCO2. Or 0.233g eqCO2 per minute, or 1.7 less impacting than a minute of video conferencing in audio and camera but 1.5 times more than a minute of video conferencing in audio-only.

The Top 3 for one minute of videoconferencing on average: Google Meet (0.164 gEqCO2), Tixeo (0.166 gEqCO2), and Microsoft Teams (0.167 gEqCO2). Google Meet, first in this ranking on the carbon impact side, has an impact 2.5 times less than, Discord, the last app in this ranking. The average of this ranking is 0.237 gEqCO2, only 7 solutions are above.

The main part of the Carbon impacts is situated on the user device part (72%), followed by the Network part (16%) and finally the Server part (12%).

Here are the three least impacting applications in terms of Carbon depending on the scenario:

Audio (Top 3)Audio + camera (Top 3)Audio + screensharing (Top 3)
Microsoft TeamsBig Blue Buttons (via Chrome)Microsoft Teams
Google MeetClick MeetingGo To Meeting
Infomaniak MeetGoogle MeetTixeo

Energy Consumption of Video Conferencing Applications (mAh)

Here are the energy consumption averages for the three scenarios:

User scenario/year1 mn of audio conference1 mn of audio + video conference1 mn of audio + screen-sharing conference
20219.84 mAh16.26 mAh9.98 mAh
20206.6 mAh14.24 mAh7.50 mAh

On average, one minute of audio-video conferencing consumes 39% less (or 1.6 times less) energy than with activated cameras and 1.5% less than when sharing a screen.

The Top 3 (all scenarios combined) in energy consumption: Microsoft Teams (27.27 mAh), Go To Meeting (28.79 mAh), and Google Meet (30.11 mAh). Microsoft Teams first in this ranking in terms of energy consumption consumes 2 times less than the last in this ranking: Discord.

Here are the three most energy efficient applications depending on the scenario:

Audio (Top 3)Audio + camera (Top 3)Audio + screen-sharing (Top 3)
Microsoft TeamsZoho MeetingMicrosoft Teams
TixeoZoomTixeo
Infomaniak kMeetStarLeafGo To Meeting

Exchanged data from videoconferencing applications (MB)

Here are the averages of the data exchanged for the three scenarios:

User scenario/year1mn of audio conference1 mn of audio + video conference1 mn of audio + screen-sharing conference
20211.15 Mo16.01 Mo1.87 Mo
20200.806 Mo8.44 Mo1.43 Mo

It is on the consumption of data that the gaps are widening between tools and uses.

On average, one minute of audio conferencing consumes 92% less (or 14 times less) data exchanged than with activated cameras and 38% less than when sharing a screen.

The Top 3 (all scenarios combined) in energy consumption: Big Blue Buttons (4.49 MB), Tixeo (6.21 MB), and Google Meet (6.30 MB). Big Blue Buttons (via Chrome) first in this ranking for exchanged data consumes 10 times less than the last in this ranking: Discord.

Here are the three applications that consume the least amount of data according to the scenario:

Audio (Top 3)Audio + camera (Top 3)Audio + screensharing (Top 3)
Cisco Webex MeetingsBig Blue ButtonsCisco Webex Meetings
Blue JeansTixeoInfomaniak kMeet
Google MeetGoogle MeetGoogle Meet

And for our daily use of videoconferencing:

Just like our first study, we advise you during your online conferences to:

Favour audio only during your meetings: the video stream (camera) will tend to consume a lot more. A mobile session is on average 2.6 times more impactful for the environment in terms of carbon impact when the video is added to the audio. Adding screen sharing is not penalizing if it is useful.

Optimize the settings (when possible): adopt the dark theme, activate the data or energy-saving settings (in the case of LED, AMOLED type screens).

Prefer videoconferencing over travelling by car!

  • Comparison for 2 people who talk to each other in a 3-hour session in audio and active cameras (0.403 gEqCO2 per minute) while one of the two has made 20 km (112 gEqCO2 / km in France) round trip for a face to face.
  • By videoconference: 180 * 0.403 * 2 = 145 gEqCO2
  • By car: 112 * 20 = 2.4 kg EqCO2 or approximately 16x more impact.

Measured versions: Big Blue Button via Chrome (87.0.4280.101), BlueJeans (45.0.2516), Circuit by Unify (1.2.5102), Cisco Webex Meetings (41.2.1), ClickMeeting (4.4.6), Go To Meeting (4.6.0.7), Discord (62.5), Google Meet (2021.01.24.355466926), Infomaniak kMeet (2.2), Jitsi (20.6.2), Pexip (3.4.6), Rainbow (1.84.1), Skype (8.68.0.97), StarLeaf (4.4.29), Microsoft Teams (1416.1.0.0.2021020402), Tixeo (16.0.1.2), WhereBy (2.3.0), Zoho Meeting (2.1.4) et Zoom (5.5.2.1328).

For each of its applications, measured on an S7 smartphone (Android 8), the user scenarios were carried out through our Greenspector Test Runner, allowing manual tests to be carried out.

Once the application is downloaded and installed, we run our measurements on the basic and original settings of the application. No modification is made (even if certain options make it possible to reduce the consumption of energy or resources: data saving mode, dark theme, etc. However, we encourage you to check the settings of your favourite application to optimize it. impact.

Each measurement is the average of 5 homogeneous measurements (with a low standard deviation). The consumption measured on the given smartphone according to a Wi-Fi type network can be different on a laptop PC with a wired network for example. For each of the iterations, the cache is first emptied.

To assess the French impacts of infrastructures (datacenter, network) in the carbon projection calculations, we relied on a Greenspector methodology based on real data measured from the volume of data exchanged. This evaluation methodology takes into account the consumption of resources and energy in use for the requested equipment. As this is a very macroscopic approach, it is subject to uncertainty and could be fine-tuned to adapt to a given context, to a given tool. For the Carbon projection, we assumed a 50% projection via a Wi-Fi network and 50% via a mobile network.

To assess the impacts of the mobile in the carbon projection calculations, we measure on a real device, the energy consumption of the user scenario and in order to integrate the material impact share, we rely on the wear rate theory generated by the user scenario on the battery, the first wearing part of a smartphone. 500 full charge and discharge cycles, therefore, cause a change of smartphone in our model. This methodology and method of calculation have been validated by the consulting firm specializing in eco-design, Evea.

In a process of continuous improvement, we are vigilant in constantly improving the consistency of our measurements as well as our methodology for projecting CO2 impact data. Therefore, it is unfortunately not possible to compare a study published a year earlier with a recent study.

Digital sobriety comparison of 3 direct messaging apps for business.

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Introduction

Today and more than ever, communication is essential in business. Since the start of the Covid-19 crisis, many companies and employees have discovered remote work. This exceptional situation has led to a change in our interaction habits: making teams communicate effectively with each other, remotely, instantly. We decided to compare the 3 most popular direct messaging apps for business: Skype, Slack and Teams.

6 scenarios were carried out on the basis of an average user journey:

– Launch of the application
– Opening of a blank one-to-one conversation
– Sending a text message
– Send an image (.jpg)
– Sending an attachment (.pdf)
– Send an animated image or GIF (.gif)

Consult the methodology and the details of the scenarios.

Carbon impact projection

Carbon impact (graph) of apps: Skype, Slack and Teams

During the application launching stage, the carbon impact of Skype (0.038 gEqCO2) and Slack (0.039 gEqCO2) are pretty similar. Teams exchanges 77% more data compared to Skype, therefore increasing its carbon impact where in terms of energy, the Teams application has a consumption similar to the other two apps.

On the part of sending a text message and sending an image, Slack is the most efficient application oscillating between -30% (message) and -60% (image) less than Skype, less good application on these two scenarios.

Generally speaking, Teams consumes a lot more data. Indeed, on average it is nearly 196 KB where Skype is at 134 KB and Slack is at 113 KB.

The application with the best carbon impact average is Slack (0.035 gEqCO2) followed closely by Skype (0.043 gEqCO2) then Teams (0.055 gEqCO2), a difference of 36% between the best and the worst.

Focus on background consumption

On the background idle side of the application, we notice several things:

Slack consumption in IDLE Background

Slack consumption in the background is higher than the other two apps. Especially in terms of data exchanged where Skype and Teams do not exchange any data in this user step. Slack also consumes in terms of CPU (1.16%) where Skype consumes 10x less and Teams is once again at zero. This consumption is not linked to the background setting (state change processing) but lasts over time both on background inactivity states and in foreground inactivity.

AppsEnergy consumption par second (µAh/s)Exchanged Data (KB)CPU (%)
Skype45.1700.11
Slack57.1442.61.16
Teams44.0800

The Slack app performs processing in the background, impacting battery, power and resource consumption throughout the day. If we project this impact for a user who puts his Slack application in the background on his phone for a whole working day (7 hours), we obtain an impact of 26 gEqCO2, or approximately the Carbon impact of an average light vehicle driven in 230 meters! At the scale of the year (220 days): this behavior for a person is equivalent to 50 km of the same vehicle. Probably a mess that could be taken care of and avoided.

Average carbon impact projection of the scenarios

Carbon impact of direct messaging apps user journeys

The scenario with the lowest carbon impact on average of the 3 applications measured is that of opening a conversation (0.018 gEqCO2) consuming 69% less than sending an attachment (0.061 gEqCO2). The step of sending an image is the second least impactful step with + 10% more than opening a conversation. Finally, sending a text message and loading the app are similar in their impact (less than 1% difference).

Disclaimer : Note that these scenarios do not have the same duration.

Scenarios and their duration (in seconds)SkypeSlackTeams
Launch of the application4,524,135,88
Opening a conversation1,761,828,95
Sending a text message33,331,7832,19
Sending an image15,169,0714,46
Sending an attachment10,1312,1310,99

Below, the ranking of applications according to their carbon impact per second.

Carbon impact per second of direct messaging apps

Projected energy consumption of scenarios over 60 seconds

Energy consumption of direct messaging apps

When it comes to the launch of the application, Skype is in the lead with energy consumption of 31 mAh followed closely by Teams (32.8 mAh) then Slack (35.5 mAh). A difference of 12% between the first and the last application for this step.

For the opening a conversation step, Teams (11.3 mAh) is doing well with a lower consumption of 61% compared to Skype and Slack side by side (29 mAh).

For the 3 scenarios of sending a text message, image or attachment, the ranking does not change: Slack remains in the lead followed by Skype and Teams.

In the end, by adding all the steps, the Teams application is the most efficient (71.3 mAh) followed by Slack in second position (85.6 mAh) then Skype, the last one (86.2 mAh).

Remember that this classification is projected over one minute of use. In real time, Slack is the fastest application (11.7 seconds on average scenario completion time), Teams the slowest (14.49 seconds), however Teams is the most sober in terms of downloading speed on the smartphone (237, 7 on average compared to 285.6 for Slack or 287.2 for Skype).

On average, a minute of writing and sending a text message consumes 3.33 mAh, which is 2x less consumption than a minute spent in videoconferencing (audio only: 6.60 mAh).

Slack vs Teams: send a GIF

Slack

Teams

For the same functionality of finding and sending a GIF via Giphy third-party, the two applications Slack and Teams have a different user journey.

In fact, Slack allows, with a simple command, the search and display of a SINGLE GIF via the keywords typed then offers the possibility of loading a new one if the first one is not suitable. The command used is as follows:

/giphy simpson

Teams meanwhile, displays a search bar that displays new GIFs with each new letter typed. So unnecessarily. loading dozens and dozens of GIFs. After typing the entire keyword “simpson”, the results window will always display a number. For this scenario, we have chosen to select the first gif from the results.

We therefore observe a difference between the two applications:

ApplicationsDuration of the scenario
(in second)
Energy consumption
(mAh)
Exchanged data
(Mo)
Carbon impact projection
(gEqCO2)
Slack24,842,370,3090,065
Teams24,423,9232,336

We can see that the Slack user journey is much more energy and resource efficient than that of Teams. Especially for the part of the data exchanged (a difference of more than 22 MB!), Which can be explained by the quantity of GIFs unnecessarily loaded by Teams.

The difference in power consumption between these two apps is 40% for a similar scenario duration. The carbon impact is multiplied by 36 for the Teams application compared to Slack.

For each of its applications, measured on an S7 smartphone (Android 8), the user scenarios were carried out through our GREENSPECTOR Test Runner, allowing the performance of automated tests.

Details of the scenarios:

  • Launch the application
  • Opening a one-to-one conversation
  • Sending a 28 character text message “Hello this is a test message”
  • Sending an image (.jpg): 32 KB (350×350)
  • Sending an attachment (.pdf): 188Kb – generated from a Word text file (A4 format)
  • Sending an animated image or GIF (.gif): GIF used for Slack – 225Ko – 500×375; GIF used for Teams – 600Kb – 500×352

Each measurement is the average of 3 homogeneous measurements (with a low standard deviation). The consumption measured on the given smartphone according to a wifi type network can be different on a laptop PC with a wired network for example. For each of the iterations, the cache is first emptied.

To assess the impacts of infrastructure (datacenter, network) in the carbon projection calculations, we relied on the OneByte methodology based on real data measured on the volume of data exchanged. This assessment methodology takes into account the consumption of resources and energy in use for the requested equipment. As this is a very macroscopic approach, it is subject to uncertainty and could be fine-tuned to adapt to a context, to a given tool. For the Carbon projection, we assumed a 50% projection via a Wi-Fi network and 50% via a mobile network.

To assess the impacts of the mobile in the carbon projection calculations, we measure the energy consumption of the user scenario on a real device and in order to integrate the material impact share, we rely on the theoretical wear rate generated by the user scenario on the battery, the first wearing part of a smartphone. 500 full charge and discharge cycles therefore cause a change of smartphone in our model. This methodology and method of calculation have been validated by the consulting firm specializing in eco-design : Evea.

The carbon impact of Instagram app features

Reading Time: 4 minutes
Instagram logo

Have you ever wondered what the environmental cost of a post, a story, watching a live or Instagram feed?

The application launched in 2010 has 1 billion monthly active users (Source) including 28 million unique visitors per month. In France, there are 11 million unique visitors per day. Instagram is the most frequented social network behind Facebook.

For this study, we chose to measure the carbon impact, energy consumption, and data on 5 user journeys on the Instagram mobile application (version 148.0.0.33.121):

  • The publication of a photo in story
  • The publication of a photo with filter and description in profile
  • Viewing a live Instagram
  • Hosting a live Instagram
  • Scrolling the news feed

The carbon impact of Instagram features per 1 minute unit of time

carbon-impact instagram

The feature that has the least impact on the environment over one minute is the photo publication (0.154 gEqCO2), this is the carbon equivalent of 1.3 meters made by a light vehicle/minute. This feature consumes 10 times less than the most impactful of our measures.

The most impactful feature over one minute is that of the scrolling of the newsfeed (1.549 gEqCO2). Over one minute, it is the equivalent of 13 meters done in a light vehicle. Composed of photos, videos, and advertisements (for an active account), the functionality does not consume the most energy (see following graphs), but in terms of the data exchanged, it is the one that displays the highest value (14.63 MB for one minute).

Regarding the Live feature, whether it is on the viewer or host side, the impact is almost the same (13% less for the viewer). The energy consumption is similar, however, the spectator part exchanges fewer data.

If we consider that the average carbon impact of Instagram is 0.664 gEqCO2 / minute (unweighted average of these 5 uses) and that its users spend an average of 28 minutes / day on the social network (Source). So the average impact of a user on Instagram is 18.6 gEqCO2 / day, the equivalent of 166 meters traveled by a light vehicle.

Average Instagram app carbon impact per day and per user

Energy consumption of Instagram features for 1 minute

energy consumption of instagram features

Posting a photo on your Instagram account consumes 1.8 times less energy than posting a photo as a Story (reduced to a one-minute user journey) and 2.4 times less than hosting a Live. The live features are very consuming here since it is a continuous video stream.


Data exchanged from Instagram features for 1 minute

exchanged data from instagram features

The association of photos, videos and advertisements of the newsfeed feature greatly impacts its data exchange since it has to load new elements when scrolling. It also consumes 2.6 times more data than hosting a live and 16 times more than publishing a photo (user journeys reduced to one minute of use) /


Methodology

The application is measured on an S7 smartphone (Android 8), the user scenarios were carried out through our GREENSPECTOR Test Runner, allowing the performance of automated tests.

Each measurement is the average of 3 homogeneous measurements (with a low standard deviation). The consumption measured on the given smartphone according to a Wi-Fi type network can be different on a laptop PC with a wired network for example.

To assess the impacts of infrastructure (datacenter, network) in the carbon projection calculations, we relied on the OneByte methodology based on real data measured on the volume of data exchanged. This assessment methodology takes into account the consumption of resources and energy in use for the requested equipment. As this is a very macroscopic approach, it is subject to uncertainty and could be fine-tuned to adapt to a context, to a given tool. For the Carbon projection, we assumed a 50% projection via a wifi network and 50% via a mobile network.

To assess the impacts of mobile phones in the carbon projection calculations, we measure the energy consumption of the user scenario on a real device and in order to integrate the material impact share, we rely on the theoretical wear rate generated by the user scenario on the battery, the first wearing part of a smartphone. 500 full charge and discharge cycles therefore cause a change of smartphone in our model.


For those who like numbers

Use caseEnergy consumption (mAh)Exchanged data (MB)Memory consumption (MB)Test time (second)Carbon impact (gEqCO2) per minuteEquivalence in meters of average car in France / minute
Create Stories3,320,522410220,2772,47
Publish a photo on your feed4,750,806425590,1541,37
Timeline scrolling9,714,63460631,54913,83
Hosting a live23,8410,554471190,7166,39
Live viewing23,398,785221190,6225,55