Category: Applications sobriety

What is the environmental impact of the most used dating applications in France?

Posted on February 14, 2023February 15, 2023 by Corentin Bagot

Reading Time: 5 minutes

Article Summary

In 2022, a third of the French population used a dating application. But what is the environmental impact of looking for love?

We measured the 10 most popular mobile dating apps (on a common user journey).

Here is the Flop 3 (the most impactful apps): Lovoo, Grindr and OkCupid.

Here is the Top 3 (the least impactful apps): Bumble, Tinder and Happn.

The impactful number: Projected over a month, the impact of these 10 dating apps is 9614 tons EqCO2. That’s equivalent to driving around the Earth 1102 times in a combustion engine car (counting 23 million French users with an average use of 55 minutes per day).

Note that many people use several applications (even if it means maximizing their chances 😉 )

Since the creation of the geolocation feature for smartphones, dating applications have become very popular. Today, there are more than 8,000 of them in the world, including 2,000 in France. Nearly a third of French people use or have used a dating application. Moreover, users spend 55 minutes a day on them.

Given these figures, we can wonder about the impact of these applications on the environment.

The dating applications we chose to measure

Three criteria were used to choose the 10 applications we evaluated: popularity, free access, and availability on Android. Indeed, we chose to evaluate applications that are free to use because they are among the most used. Less than 3% of French people use paid applications.

Regarding the evaluation, a common scenario was determined that is compatible with all applications, namely consulting profiles, liking or not liking the profile, and sending a message. This allows us to get as close as possible to the real use of the application.

Step 1: Launching the application

Step 2: Dislike a profile (by swiping or clicking on “reject”)

Step 3: Like a profile (or send a tap) (by swiping or clicking on “like”)

Step 4: View the details of a profile (by scrolling)

Step 5: Like the profile (or send a tap) (by swiping or clicking on “like”)

Step 6: View the last conversation

Step 7: Send a message in this conversation

Ranking of the environmental footprint of the 10 most used free dating applications in France

The 3 most impactful applications: are Lovoo, Grindr, and OkCupid.

The 3 applications with the least impact: are Bumble, Tinder, and Happn.

We note that the most impactful application (Lovoo) has an impact 5 times greater than that of the least impactful application (Bumble).

The average carbon impact of these applications is 0.25 gEqCO2 for an average duration of 25 seconds. This is equivalent to driving 1 meter in a combustion engine car.

Projecting carbon impacts over one month

To project the impact of the applications in this ranking, we will use the following assumptions

100% of users are in France
100% of users are on mobile phones

Various studies show that one-third of the French population (23 million individuals) used dating applications in 2022 with an average of 55 minutes spent on them.

Projected over a month, the impact of these 10 dating apps is 9614 tons of CO2e. This is equivalent to driving around the Earth’s circumference 1102 times in a combustion engine car.

For the highest-ranked application (Bumble), for an average of 55 minutes per day for a month, a user has an impact of 579 gEqCO2. This is equivalent to driving 2.7 kilometers in a combustion-engine car.

For the lowest ranked application (Lovoo), for an average of 55 minutes per day for a month, a user has an impact of 2.7 kgEqCO2. This is equivalent to driving 12.4 kilometers in a combustion-engine car.

Greenspector experts focus on the soberest application: Bumble

The Bumble application is particularly sober during the launch and opening phases of the message page. During these phases, little data is loaded and there is no major energy overconsumption.

On the page where the profiles are displayed, only about 4 are pre-loaded. Animations are also limited during actions on the application and a delayed loading of photos has been implemented for those not seen on the screen.

Greenspector experts focus on the least sober application: Lovoo

The Lovoo application is at the bottom of the ranking with a much higher impact than its competitors. Although the performance is excellent except for the rather long opening time of the application, the energy and data consumption is very high. The integration of ubiquitous advertising with carousels or videos contributes greatly to this over-consumption.

Opening the page to swiping loads an average of 1.9 MB of data. Many profiles are pre-loaded to be displayed smoothly after each swipe compared to competing applications. More than 20 profiles are preloaded compared to about 4 on other applications.

Summary

Between the soberest dating application and the least sober application, we note that the impact is 5 times more important.

Note that the differences are mostly due to animations, the consequent loading of data (photos, videos…), and the management of the elements displayed on the screen. By applying good practices, it is possible to reduce the environmental impact of applications.

As a user, we can reduce our impact by using only one dating application if we have several.

And to go further in digital sobriety, it is always possible to meet people in real life!

Results table

Applications	Version	Energy (mAh)	Data exchanged (MB)	Carbon impact (gEqCO2)	Water Footprint (Litres)	Soil Footprint (cm²)	Scenario duration (seconds)
Lovoo	143.0	58,9	5,3	0,7	0,1	0,2	25,3
Grindr	9.2.0	44,5	3,3	0,4	0,0	0,2	21,0
Happn	26.31.2	36,6	0,9	0,2	0,0	0,1	30,7
Fruitz	3.6.2	41,4	0,9	0,2	0,0	0,1	27,6
Hinge	9.15.1	36,6	1,0	0,2	0,0	0,1	29,0
Adopte un mec	4.9.21	86,0	0,6	0,2	0,0	0,2	30,4
Badoo	5.306.0	37,2	1,5	0,2	0,0	0,1	23,6
OKCupid	74.1.0	42,1	1,5	0,2	0,0	0,1	20,2
Bumble	5.307.0	35,6	0,8	0,1	0,0	0,1	23,2
Tinder	14.2.0	55,2	0,6	0,1	0,0	0,1	21,4

For each of the applications, measured on a Samsung Galaxy S9 (Android 10), the measurements were carried out using scripts based on GDSL (Greenspector Domain-Specific Language). This language allows automated actions to be performed on a phone. The measurements were carried out in February 2023.

Details of the scenario :

Disliking a profile
Liked a profile
View the details of a profile (see the information and the different photos) and like it
Go to the inbox and send a message in the last conversation held

Each measurement is the average of 5 homogeneous measurements (with a small standard deviation). The consumption measured on a given smartphone according to a wifi type network can be different if one is in 4G or 3G.

On the footprint projection side, the parameters taken into account to achieve these rankings are :

Display ratio: 100% Smartphone
Viewing ratio: 100% France
Server location: 100% Worldwide

Discover our solutions

The impact of our videoconferencing uses on mobile and PC! 2022 edition

Posted on September 6, 2022September 6, 2022 by Lysa Corcuff

Reading Time: 5 minutes

We have decided to proceed differently for this year’s ranking 2022. Unlike the 2021 edition, we have reduced the number of applications measured. We have both taken measurements on the phone and also on the PC to meet demand. It is the purpose of these new measures to compare how the solutions stack up in terms of environmental impact (Carbon) on different user scenarios but also on two platforms: PCs and phones.

We compared 10 apps: BlueJeans, Google Meet, Go To Meeting, JITSI, Skype, Teams, Webex, Whereby, Zoho Meetings et Zoom.

For each of its applications, measured on an S7 smartphone (Android 8) and on a computer, 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- one-to-one: :

Audio conference only
Audio and video conferencing (camera activated on both sides)
Audio conferencing and screen sharing

Learn more about the methodology.

Projected ranking in the carbon impact of videoconferencing apps (gEqCO2) on mobile

Scenario / Year	1 min audio videoconference	1 min audio + camera videoconference	1 min audio + screen sharing videoconference
2022	0.31 gEqCO₂	1.10 gEqCO₂	0.54 gEqCO₂
Equivalent in meters travelled in a light vehicle	2,76 meters	9,82 meters	4,82 meters

Audio video conferencing has an average impact of 71% less than cameras active and 42% less than sharing a screen.

The Top 3 of one minute of videoconference on average: Zoho Meeting (0.49 gEqCO2), Microsoft Teams (0.513 gEqCO2) and Whereby (0.533 gEqCO2). Zoho Meeting, first in this ranking on the carbon impact side, has an impact 2.2 times less than GoToMeeting, the last in this ranking. The average of this ranking is 0.657 gEqCO2, 4 solutions are above.

The main part of the Carbon impacts is on the user device part (61%), followed by the Server part (23%) and finally the Network part (16%).

Here are the three mobile applications with the least impact in terms of Carbon according to the scenario:

Audio (Top 3)	Audio + camera (Top 3)	Audio + Screen Sharing (Top 3)
Microsoft Teams	Whereby	Microsoft Teams & Zoho Meeting
Cisco Webex Meeting	Zoho Meeting	Zoom & Google Meet
JITSI Meet	Teams & Zoom	Cisco Webex Meeting

Energy consumption of videoconferencing apps (mAh) on mobile

Here are the power consumption averages for the three phone scenarios:

Scenario / Year	1 min audio videoconference	1 min audio + camera videoconference	1 min audio + screen sharing videoconference
2022	6.68 mAh	14.29 mAh	7.82 mAh

A single minute of audio video conference consumes 53% less energy (or 2.1 times less) than with cameras activated, and 14.5% less than sharing a screen.

Energy consumption of videoconferencing apps (mAh) on PC

Here are the computer energy consumption averages:

Average: 1mn of audio videoconference	Average: 1mn of audio + camera videoconference	Average: 1mn of audio + scree sharing videoconference
17.25 mAh	23.65 mAh	22.82 mAh

Here, one minute of audio video conferencing consumes 27% less (or 1.4 times less) energy than with cameras activated and 24% less than sharing a screen. Therefore, depending on the scenario, we see a much more significant difference in energy consumption on the telephone.

Zoho Meeting (76.21 mAh), BlueJeans (81.70 mAh) and Microsoft Teams (83 mAh) are the top 3 in energy consumption (all scenarios combined). First in this ranking in terms of energy consumption, Zoho Meeting consumes 1.4 times less energy than the last.

Here are the three mobile applications with the least impact in terms of Carbon according to the scenario:

Audio (Top 3)	Audio + camera (Top 3)	Audio + Screen Sharing (Top 3)
Blue Jeans	Zoho Meeting	Zoho Meeting
Cisco Webex Meeting	Zoom	Teams
Google Meet	Teams	BlueJeans

Exchanged data from videoconferencing apps (MB) on mobile

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

Scenario / Year	1 min audio videoconference	1 min audio + camera videoconference	1 min audio + screen sharing videoconference
2022	0,88 MB	10,34 MB	4,49 MB

Data consumption is where the gap between tools and uses is widening.

On average, one minute of audio video conferencing consumes 91% less (or 12 times less) data exchanged than with activated cameras and 80% less than sharing a screen.

The Top 3 (all scenarios combined) in data exchange: Whereby (4.54 MB), Zoho Meeting (8.39 MB) and Skype (9.68 MB). Whereby (via Firefox) first in this ranking in terms of data exchanged consumes 9.2 times less than the last in this ranking: GoToMeeting.

Here are the three least data-consuming apps according to the scenario:

Audio (Top 3)	Audio + camera (Top 3)	Audio + Screen Sharing (Top 3)
Blue Jeans	Whereby	Zoho Meeting
Zoho Meeting	Zoho Meeting	Skype
Whereby	Skype	Zoom

For our daily use of videoconferencing:

In the study carried out in 2021, we indicated that videoconferencing is preferable to travelling by car. Indeed, this solution is less polluting, however, beware of rebound effects! Since the global pandemic, working from home has become widespread in many companies, but this practice encourages more people to live away from their workplaces. As a result, the environmental benefits of working from home can be offset depending on the pace of remote working and the means of transport used.

In addition, it is necessary to draw attention to the increase in energy consumption of the generated hearths. It is possible that this increase might compensate for the drop in energy needs on business premises, but this must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Examples:

Office vs Home Working: How we can save our carbon footprint.
Comment réduire son empreinte écologique au travail ? (French language)
Le télétravail est-il vraiment meilleur pour l’environnement ? (French language)

Measured versions:

Microsoft Teams (4.10.1) / computer (1.5.00.10453)
Zoom (5.10.4) / computer (5.10.7.3311)
Google Meet (2022.05.15.450927857) / light version on Firefox
Cisco Webex Meetings (42.6.0.239) / computer (42.5.0.22187)
GoToMeeting (4.8.1) / light version on Chrome
BlueJeans (2.2.0.142) / computer (2.29.1-3)
Skype (8.82.0.403) / computer (8.83.0.411
Whereby (2.3.0) / light client on Firefox
Zoho Meeting (2.2.1) / light version on Firefox
Jitsi Meet (21.3.0)/ light version on Firefox

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

Once the app is downloaded and installed, we run our measurements on the app’s baseline and original settings. No changes are made (even if some options allow you to reduce energy or resource consumption: data saving mode, dark theme, etc. However, we encourage you to check the settings of your favourite application in order to optimize its impact.

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

As for computer measurements, the Yocto-Watt from YoctoPuce was used to measure energy consumption. In the same way as for mobile applications, heavy clients, when one existed, were downloaded and then installed without changing the basic parameters. This chip, therefore, only allows you to have energy consumption, which is why the carbon impact and the data exchanged in this article only concern the telephone part. Additional resource on the Yoctopuce.

Find out how Greenspector assesses the environmental footprint of using a digital service. (Full methodology)

What is the environmental footprint of the ten most-visited m-commerce sites and applications in France?

Posted on May 27, 2022May 30, 2022 by Léo CHAUVIN

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Introduction

The e-commerce market in France is experiencing very significant growth. E-commerce sales have increased from 57 billion in 2014 to 112.2 billion euros in 2021. The health crisis is partly responsible for this increase. It has considerably increased online shopping and created habits among the French. Among these sales, those on mobile have experienced impressive growth. They increased by 13% in 2021. Nearly one in two French people (48%) now make purchases via their phones. One in three French people (34%) buys via their phone at least once a month.

Quick access

Ranking of the most popular sites
Projections of carbon impacts
Ranking of the most popular apps
Conclusion
Results
Methodology

Shopping cart abandonment accounts for $18 billion in lost sales every year. Mobile abandonment rates are higher (97%) than desktop abandonment rates (between 70 and 75%). The reasons are multiple: the price, the shipping costs, the speed of delivery, the discounts available, but also the loading time of the site (Source). M-commerce sites and applications, therefore, have every interest in demonstrating performance and digital sobriety.

What about the ten most visited e-commerce sites and applications in France? What are the most frugal sites and applications on which to do your e-shopping in complete sobriety?

Choice of sites and applications

To determine which sites and applications to study, we relied on the ranking of e-commerce sites and applications produced by Médiamétrie and the Fevad (Federation of e-commerce and distance selling). These are the most popular sites and applications in France in the 2nd quarter of 2021.

This study’s distinguishing feature is that it is based on a common scenario that goes from the search and consultation of a product to the consultation of the basket before payment. Thus, we can be as close as possible to the real uses of Internet users and mobile users.

Ranking of the environmental footprint of the ten most popular e-commerce sites in France

The three least impacting sites are Leclerc, Cdiscount et eBay.

The three most impactful sites are Amazon, Carrefour et Veepee.

We observe more than 2.7 times more impact between the least impacting site (Leclerc) and the most impacting site (Amazon) in this ranking.

The average carbon impact of these ten websites is 0.92 gEqCO2 for an average duration of the scenario of 1 minute and 54 seconds, i.e. the equivalent of 8 meters travelled in a light vehicle.

Projection of carbon impacts over one month

It is estimated that 55% of global e-commerce traffic is done on mobile devices, compared with 39% on PCs and 6% on tablets (Source).

If we project the carbon impact of these ten e-commerce sites for an average of 37.41 million visits per month lasting 5 minutes and 54 seconds, this impact would be 439.6 tonnes of CO2eq per month (87.5 tonnes on mobile, 341.0 tonnes on PC and 11.1 tonnes on tablet). It is the equivalent of 98 times the circumference of the Earth travelled by light vehicle.

Regarding the best website in this ranking (Leclerc) for 9.99 million visits/month with an average duration of 3 minutes, this impact would be 37.0 tonnes of CO2eq per month (5.9 tonnes on mobile, 30 .3 tons on PC and 0.8 tons on a tablet). It is the equivalent of 8 times the circumference of the Earth travelled by light vehicle.

For the worst website in this ranking (Amazon) with 164,32 million monthly visits and an average duration of 8 minutes, the carbon impact would be 2639.4 tonnes of CO2eq (588.1 tonnes on mobile, 1978.4 tons on PC and 72.9 tons on tablet). It is the equivalent of 588 times the circumference of the Earth travelled by light vehicle.

The Leclerc website stands out especially in terms of the stages of research, viewing a product and viewing the basket. Indeed, this site consumes little energy on these phases compared to its competitors. Only essential information is present on this search page (name of products, price, availability). When viewing the product sheet, customers have the option of adding the item quickly to their basket, and drop-down menus are provided for additional information. Also, this site exchanges the least amount of data to complete the scenario.

On the search page of a product, many good practices are applied. There are few network exchanges with 12 HTTP requests and a single CSS file. The images are lazy-loaded.

The Amazon website gets its poor ranking mainly from the research and viewing stages of a product. Indeed, this site consumes a lot of energy during these phases, and exchanges a lot of data. There are 9.10 MB of data exchanged for the research phase (compared to 1.03 MB for Leclerc), and 5.58 MB of data exchanged for the product sheet (compared to 0.18 MB for Leclerc). When searching, a lot of information appears (indication “Suggestions”, “Sponsored”, “Amazon Choice” or “No. 1 in sales”, product name, rating, number of reviews, price, reduction, date of delivery). An autoplay advertising video even appears in the middle of the products. When viewing the product, a lot of information also appears (offers, delivery dates in case of free or accelerated delivery, product details, products frequently purchased together…). In addition, the customer is obliged to scroll before being able to access and click on the “Add to cart” button.

Going into more detail on the product search page, there are a lot of network exchanges with 109 HTTP requests and 9 CSS files. The deferred loading (lazy-loading) of images is not applied, which implies a loading of images not visible on the screen. This practice should be avoided because the user will not necessarily scroll to these images.

Ranking of the environmental footprint of the then most popular m-commerce apps in France

The three least impacting apps are eBay, Leclerc et Carrefour.

The three most impactful apps are Amazon, AliExpress et ManoMano.

We observe more than 2.8 times more impact between the least impacting app (eBay) and the most impactful app (Amazon) in this ranking.

The average carbon impact of these 10 applications is 0.69 gEqCO2 for an average duration of the scenario of 2 minutes and 1 second, i.e. the equivalent of 6 meters travelled in a light vehicle.

The eBay application takes its first place in the phases of launching the application and viewing the basket. Indeed, during these phases, this application consumes little energy. In addition, it exchanges little data over the entire duration of the scenario (only 0.53 MB).

Amazon once again finds itself in last place in the ranking, far behind its competitors. This result can again be explained by the research and visualization phases of the product, where this application consumes much more energy than the others. In terms of data exchanged, we observe 8.22 MB for research (compared to 0.23 MB for eBay) and 2.6 MB for the product sheet (compared to 0.13 MB for eBay).

Conclusion

Whether for the most visited websites or m-commerce applications in France, we see an impact almost three times greater between the soberest platform and the most impactful one.

It shows that by managing the information visible on the screen, the loading of images, the consumption of scripts and the data exchanged during the scenario differently, it is possible to reduce the environmental impact of a website and a mobile app.

As an e-shopper using his mobile, it is better to go through applications than websites. Indeed, websites have an average impact of 39% more on the scenario studied. Only AliExpress has a higher consumption on the app than on the website. However, applications have an effect on their download and updates. They are therefore to be preferred only in the event of regular orders.

In terms of digital sobriety, nothing will equal buying food products at the market and other products from local traders, of course!

Results

Ranking of the 10 most popular websites in France

Websites	URL	Energy consumption (mAh)	Exchanged Data (Mo)	Carbon Impact (gEqCO2)	Water footprint (Litres)	Surface footprint (m²)	Scenario duration (seconds)
Leclerc	e.leclerc	11,57	2,59	0,61	0,10	1,29	102.72
Cdiscount	cdiscount.com	13,49	2,62	0,69	0,13	1,50	108.03
eBay	ebay.fr	14,00	3,96	0,78	0,14	1,58	122.24
Leroy Merlin	leroymerlin.fr	15,47	3,15	0,80	0,14	1,72	112.67
AliExpress	fr.aliexpress.com	14,84	3,89	0,80	0,13	1,67	114.46
ManoMano	manomano.fr	13,60	6,30	0,87	0,14	1,56	107.33
Fnac	fnac.com	16,88	4,20	0,90	0,15	1,90	118.37
Veepee	veepee.fr	14,50	8,19	1,00	0,16	1,68	114.95
Carrefour	carrefour.fr	20,25	4,14	1,04	0,19	2,25	118.8
Amazon	amazon.fr	19,04	18,06	1,68	0,24	2,29	123.84

Ranking of the 10 most popular apps in France

Applications	Version	Energy consumption (mAh)	Exchanged Data (Mo)	Carbon Impact (gEqCO2)	Water footprint (Litres)	Surface footprint (m²)	Scenario duration (seconds)
eBay	6.51.0.2	11,69	0,53	0,51	0,09	1,27	119,73
Carrefour	14.4.3	11,67	0,57	0,52	0,10	1,29	108,64
LeclercDrive	15.2.0	11,97	0,45	0,52	0,10	1,30	128,01
Leroy Merlin	7.12.3	12,95	0,51	0,55	0,11	1,41	115,84
Cdiscount	1.43.0-twa	13,81	0,04	0,58	0,11	1,49	115,44
Fnac	5.2.7	12,78	1,14	0,59	0,11	1,41	128,84
Veepee	5.24.2	12,17	2,32	0,63	0,11	1,35	114,47
ManoMano	1.15.2	15,48	0,26	0,65	0,12	1,69	124,59
AliExpress	8.44.0	17,55	2,33	0,84	0,17	1,94	123,71
Amazon Shopping	24.6.0.100	19,74	12,86	1,46	0,22	2,31	126,03

For each site and each application, measured on a Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (Android 9), the measurements were carried out using scripts using the GDSL (Greenspector Domain-Specific Language) language. This language makes it possible to automate actions to be carried out on a telephone. The measurements were taken between March 29 and April 1, 2022.

Detail of the scenario common to the 20 measures:
-Launch of the site or application
-30 second pause on the homepage
-Search for a product using the search bar, then view the products on offer
-Selection of a product, then visualization of its characteristics (details, opinions, etc.)
-Adding the product to the cart
-30 second pause on the shopping cart page

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

On the projection side of the footprint, the parameters taken into account to carry out these classifications are:

Viewing Ratio: 100% Smartphone
Viewing ratio: 100% France
Server location: 100% World

Find out how Greenspector assesses the environmental footprint of a digital service.

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

Posted on October 26, 2021October 27, 2021 by Kimberley DERUDDER

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)

Application	The carbon impact of newsfeed/min	2021 Rank	2020 Evolution	Water Resource	Land Use
Youtube	0.46 gEqCO2/min	1	=	0.08 Liters	0.92 m²
Twitch	0.55 gEqCO2/min	2	+3	0.09 Liters	1.01 m²
Twitter	0.60 gEqCO2/min	3	+1	0.10 Liters	1.14 m²
LinkedIn	0.71 gEqCO2/min	4	-1	0.10 Liters	1.00 m²
Facebook	0.79 gEqCO2/min	5	-3	0.12 Liters	1.38 m²
Snapchat	0.87 gEqCO2/min	6	+1	0.12 Liters	1.29 m²
Instagram	1.05 gEqCO2/min	7	-1	0.12 Liters	1.03 m²
Pinterest	1.30 gEqCO2/min	8	=	0.15 Liters	1.25 m²
Reddit	2.48 gEqCO2/min	9	=	0.23 Liters	1.35 m²
TikTok	2.63 gEqCO2/min	10	=	0.27 Liters	1.88 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)

Application	Energy Consumption of newsfeed/min	2021 Rank	2020 Evolution
Youtube	8.58 mAh	1	=
Instagram	8.9 mAh	2	+5
LinkedIn	8.92 mAh	3	-1
Twitch	9.05 mAh	4	-1
Twitter	10.28 mAh	5	+1
Pinterest	10.83 mAh	6	+2
Reddit	11.04 mAh	7	-4
Snapchat	11.48 mAh	8	+2
Facebook	12.36 mAh	9	-5
TikTok	15.81 mAh	10	-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)

Application	Exchanged Data on newsfeed/min	2021 Rank	2020 Evolution
Youtube	3.09 MB	1	=
Twitter	6.28 MB	2	+2
Twitch	6.87 MB	3	+2
Facebook	11.15 MB	4	-2
LinkedIn	15.34 MB	5	-2
Snapchat	17.26 MB	6	+1
Instagram	32.46 MB	7	-1
Pinterest	40.65 MB	8	=
TikTok	96.23 MB	9	+1
Reddit	100 MB	10	-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

Application	Version	Downloads	Google Playstore Grade
YouTube	16.40.35	10 000 000 000+	4,3
LinkedIn	4.1.627.1	500 000 000+	4,3
Reddit	2021.41.0	50 000 000+	4,3
Facebook	340.0.0.27.113	5 000 000 000+	2,6
Twitch	11.7.0	100 000 000+	4,5
Twitter	9.16.1	1 000 000 000+	3,5
Instagram	210.0.0.28.71	1 000 000 000+	3,8
Pinterest	9.35.0	500 000 000+	4,6
TikTok	21.6.5	1 000 000 000+	4,4
Snapchat	11.50.0.29	1 000 000 000+	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 h ow does Greenspector assess the environmental footprint of digital service use .

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

Posted on April 5, 2021August 31, 2022 by Kimberley DERUDDER

Reading Time: 6 minutes

We invite you to consult the 2022 edition. Read the article.

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 / Year	1 mn of audio conference	1 min of audio + video conference	1 min of audio + screen sharing conference
2021	0.155 gEqCO₂	0.403 gEqCO₂	0.163 gEqCO₂
	1,38 meters made in a light vehicle	3,6 meters made in a light vehicle	1,46 meters made in a light vehicle
2020	0.102 gEqCO₂	0.289 gEqCO₂	0.121 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 Teams	Big Blue Buttons (via Chrome)	Microsoft Teams
Google Meet	Click Meeting	Go To Meeting
Infomaniak Meet	Google Meet	Tixeo

Energy Consumption of Video Conferencing Applications (mAh)

Here are the energy consumption averages for the three scenarios:

User scenario/year	1 mn of audio conference	1 mn of audio + video conference	1 mn of audio + screen-sharing conference
2021	9.84 mAh	16.26 mAh	9.98 mAh
2020	6.6 mAh	14.24 mAh	7.50 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 Teams	Zoho Meeting	Microsoft Teams
Tixeo	Zoom	Tixeo
Infomaniak kMeet	StarLeaf	Go To Meeting

Exchanged data from videoconferencing applications (MB)

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

User scenario/year	1mn of audio conference	1 mn of audio + video conference	1 mn of audio + screen-sharing conference
2021	1.15 Mo	16.01 Mo	1.87 Mo
2020	0.806 Mo	8.44 Mo	1.43 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 Meetings	Big Blue Buttons	Cisco Webex Meetings
Blue Jeans	Tixeo	Infomaniak kMeet
Google Meet	Google Meet	Google 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.

1 hour of Netflix viewing is equivalent to 100 gEqCO2. So what?

Posted on March 23, 2021March 26, 2021 by Olivier PHILIPPOT

Reading Time: 7 minutes

Netflix, along with others like the BBC, has researched, with support from the University of Bristol, the impact of its service. The precise figures and the methodology will be published soon, but it appears that one hour of viewing Netflix is equivalent to 100 gEqCO2.

When the communication was released, several digital players took up this figure, but, in my opinion, not for good reasons. Communicating the impact of video through The Shift Project emerges as a systematic point of debate. As of March 2020, the Shift post had been widely disseminated in the media with a significant evaluation error. This error had been corrected in June 2020 but the damage was already done.

In this context, the IEA carried out a contradictory analysis on the subject. In the end, many studies on the impact of the video came out (IEA, the German Ministry of the Environment, ourselves with our study on the impact of playing a Canal + video). It is always difficult but not impossible to compare the figures (for example, whether or not the manufacturing stage is taken into account, the representativeness of the terminals, the different infrastructures, and optimizations between players, etc.), however, if we take things comparable, all studies have similar orders of magnitude. By taking the correction for the Shift Project error (Ratio 8 resulting from an error between Byte and Bit), the numbers are also close.

What do the studies say?

But beyond the discussions on the numbers, if we examine the studies in detail, the conclusions point in the same direction:

Regardless of the unit cost, there is a significant growth in usage and overall impact.

“Set against all this is the fact that consumption of streaming media is growing rapidly. Netflix subscriptions grew 20% last year to 167m, while electricity consumption rose 84%.”

The impact of digital services is relatively small compared to the impact of other activities. However, it is necessary to continue to study and monitor this impact.

“What is indisputable is the need to keep a close eye on the explosive growth of Netflix and other digital technologies and services to ensure society is receiving maximum benefits, while minimising the negative consequences – including on electricity use and carbon emissions.”

The aim of the concerned companies is to better measure their impact and identify the real areas for optimization.

“Netflix isn’t the only company using DIMPACT right now, either. The BBC, ITV, and Sky are also involved. A spokesperson from ITV says that, like Netflix, the tool will help it to find and target hot spots and reduce emissions. Making such decisions based on accurate data is crucial if digital media companies are to get a grip on their carbon footprints.”

“This work allows us first of all to identify the technical projects to prioritize to minimize the carbon footprint of myCANAL video consumption as much as possible. At the same time, the lessons guide us on the awareness messages to relay to our users, throughout our future developments. This commitment to cooperation between our technical developments and our users is the key to consumption that has less impact on the environment. “ (Testimony of the CDO of Canal +, Greenspector study of the impact of playing a video)

The impact of the video can be small but it is necessary to measure it well (previous point)...

“The most recent findings now show us that it is possible to stream data without negatively impacting the climate if you do it right and choose the right method for data transmission”.

Are the discussions going in the right direction?

The errors of some studies did not help calm the discussions. Neither does the media coverage of these figures. However, we should not be fooled, saying that digital technology has an impact is not necessarily well accepted by all players. This can be a nuisance for a field that for 30 years has been accustomed to a development paradigm without very little constraint and above all very little interest in internal environmental issues. Let us remember that Moore’s Law, which governs this digital world a great deal, is a self-fulfilling prophecy and not a scientific law: the industry is putting in place financial and technical means so that the power of processors increases regularly. We must not be fooled because focusing on certain errors allows the problems to be ignored. I have seen only quotes from the Shift Project error in Netflix’s DIMPACT ad but no quotes about Netflix’s desire to measure and reduce its impact. We must accept the mistakes of the past if we are to move forward on this subject. The study of the Shift has the merit of bringing to the fore an issue that was difficult to be seen. And also accept these own mistakes, how many digital promises have not been (yet) proven? Have the positive digital externalities been scientifically quantified by a sufficient number of studies? This latest analysis shows that the few existing studies (Mainly 2 Carbon Trust studies and the GSMA) deserve much more work to confirm the huge announced benefits of digital technology.

“The study of claims of positive impacts of digital on the climate leads to the conclusion that these cannot be used to inform policy decisions or research. They are based on extremely patchy data and assumptions that are too optimistic to extrapolate global estimates. In addition, the two reports studied do not see the avoidances in the same sectors, or even contradict each other.“

It is even a shame to focus on one aspect of the impact by dismissing the overall issue. This is the case in the discussion of the impact of the network on the energy part. The calculation method based on the kWh / Gb metric, even if shared by almost all of the studies and internal teams of operators, is criticized by some. This method can in fact be improved, but the church must be put back in the middle of the village: the impact of the network is in all cases weaker than the Terminal part, the material manufacturing part is never discussed in these debates while this is the main issue of the impact of digital technology. Especially since the energy improvement of the network and data centers is based on a principle contrary to the impact of the hardware: the regular renewal of the hardware to put in place new, more efficient technologies.

Google has been criticized for the waste policy of its servers. Practices have been improved but one can wonder about this management: even if the servers are resold and the environmental cost is amortized for the buyer, this does not change anything in the excessive renewal cycle.

“We’re also working to design out waste, embedding circular economy principles into our server management by reusing materials multiple times. In 2018, 19% of components used for machine upgrades were refurbished inventory. When we can’t find a new use for our equipment, we completely erase any components that stored data and then resell them. In 2018, we resold nearly 3.5 million units into the secondary market for reuse by other organizations.” (Google Environmental Report 2019).

One of the first explanations for these clear-cut discussions often comes from the lack of awareness of digital environmental issues. But behind that there is also a more sociological explanation: We reproach certain organizations for “ecological” beliefs. However, we can also speak of belief among certain digital players when we uncritically idolize the benefits of digital technology. In this case, not sure let these discussions go in the right direction. “Technophobic” versus “Techno-béa”, the reasoned find it difficult to take their place in the middle. Several avenues are however useful to progress serenely on the impact of digital!

Let us limit the comparisons between domains

Comparisons of the environmental impact of digital technology with other fields are a trap. It is necessary to understand an abstract CO2 impact. We use it ourselves to carry out this awareness. However, this leads to sometimes biased conclusions.

Here is the brief used by Les Echos! “Netflix claims that one hour of streaming on its platform generates less than 100gCO2e. This is the equivalent of using a 75W fan for 6 hours in Europe, or a 1,000W air conditioner running for 40 minutes.”

So an hour of streaming is low? Yes and no. Because it has to be seen from a “macro” level: worldwide viewing hours are exploding. And Netflix isn’t the only digital service we use. Is it possible to compare it to fan time? A household will be able to visualize 4 flows at the same time for several hours, we are not on the same importance of use with a fan (Maybe if with global warming …).

What is important is that this metric will allow service designers to track their improvement. With the details of this impact, they will be able to identify the hotspots. It will allow you to compare yourself to a competitor and to position yourself.

Using these numbers to say that the impact of digital is huge or zero doesn’t help much in the debate. All areas must reduce their impact, the challenges ahead are enormous and this type of comparison does not necessarily help in the dynamics of improvement. On the other hand, the more this type of study comes out, the more we will have a precise mapping of the impact of digital technology.

Let’s collaborate!

LCA models are criticized for their unreliability. Ok, is that a reason to abandon digital impact analysis? That would suit some well!

Above all, it is necessary to improve them. And this will come through more transparency: public LCAs from equipment manufacturers, energy consumption metrics reported by hosts, and even more information on the renewal of parks … Some players are playing the game, it is is what we were able to do for example with Canal + and this made it possible to have reliable data on the datacenter, CDN and terminal parts. However, the lack of transparency is significant in this sector when it comes to the area of environmental impact.

It is also necessary to avoid always blaming other sectors. In these discussions about the impact of video, and more broadly digital, I continually see “it’s not me, it’s him” arguments. For example, it is the hardware that must be acted upon, implying the software is not responsible for the impact. Once again, the environmental context is critical, there are no quick fixes and everyone must act. To free oneself from actions by pointing fingers at other actors is not serious. The idea of measuring the impact of digital is not to do “digital bashing” but to improve it. So there is no reason not to take these issues into account, unless ” go into a lobbying process and want to move towards total digital liberalization.

Having seen this field evolve over the past 10 years, I can say that there is a real awareness of certain players. The impact of digital can still be denied, but it is a dangerous risk. Dangerous because it is clear that the environmental objectives will be more and more restrictive, like it or not. Not taking this issue in hand is leaving it to other people. This is what we are seeing today: some are complaining about digital laws. But what have they done over the past 10 years when this issue was known? For fear that this will slow down the development of digital technology compared to other countries? Instead, why not see digital sobriety as a competitive factor in our industry? We can see that sobriety is taken into account by many countries (the DIMPACT project is an example). France has a lead with many players dealing with sobriety. It is time to act, to collaborate on these subjects, to criticize the methods to improve them, to measure themselves, for everyone to act in their area of expertise.

This is what guides our R&D strategy, providing a precise tool for measuring energy consumption and the impact of terminals. We are working to improve the reliability of measurements in this area, to try to provide food for thought and metrics. Hoping that the debates will be non-Manichean and more constructive and that the digital sector fully takes environmental issues into account.

What are the best Android web browsers to use in 2021?

Posted on January 5, 2021April 15, 2021 by Olivier PHILIPPOT

Reading Time: 8 minutes

The internet browser is the most important tool on a mobile device. It is the engine for browsing the internet. No longer just for websites but also now for new types of applications based on web technologies (progressive web app, games, etc.).

For this new edition of our ranking, carried out in 2018 and 2020, we have chosen to compare 16 mobile applications: Brave, DuckDuckGo, Chrome, Ecosia, Edge, Firefox, Firefox Focus, Firefox Nightly (formerly Firefox Preview), Kiwi, Mint, Opera, Opera Mini, Qwant, Samsung, Vivaldi et Yandex.

The objective of these measures is to see how the solutions stand in terms of environmental impact (Carbon) in relation to each other on common user scenarios but also to provide benchmarks on our uses of browsers.

For each of the 16 applications measured on a Galaxy S7 (Android 8) smartphone, the scenarios integrating the launch of the browser, browsing on 7 different websites, periods of inactivity, etc. were carried out through our Greenspector Test Runner, allowing the performance of automated tests.

Learn more about our methodology

Total energy consumption (in mAh)

The average power consumption is 49mAh (as a reminder, the 2020 ranking average was 47mAh or -4.2%).

Here is the evolution from last year.

	2021 Ranking	2020 Ranking	Évolution
Firefox Focus	1	10	9
Vivaldi	2	4	2
DuckDuckGo	3	5	2
Firefox Nighly	4	10	6
Yandex	5	3	-2
Kiwi	6	8	2
Opéra	7	2	-5
Brave	8	7	-1
Ecosia	9	1	-8
Chrome	10	6	-4
Samsung	11	9	-2
Firefox	12	13	1
Edge	13	11	-2
Qwant	14	13	-1
Opera Mini	15	14	-1
Mint	16	12	-4

Firefox Focus is the best solution in terms of energy consumption in our comparison. The version evaluated in 2020 was one of the first versions and it seems that Firefox teams have been working on optimizing the power consumption of their browser since. Ecosia loses its leading position on this indicator and finds itself in the middle of the ranking. On the side of the most energy-hungry browsers, we find Mint and Opera Mini. Note that the most popular browsers: Edge, Firefox, Chrome, and Samsung, are quite poorly classified.

This total energy consumption can be evaluated and analyzed in 2 ways: the energy consumption of pure navigation and the energy consumption related to the functionality of the browser.

Energy consumption of navigation (in mAh)

Navigation is the consumption only associated with viewing the page (no consideration of launching the browser, features, etc.).

Most browsers have a fairly similar power consumption on “pure” navigation. This is mainly due to the use of visualization engines. Most browsers use the Chromium view engine.

Compared to the 2020 ranking, it seems that the Firefox engine has improved. Qwant, using this engine too.

Energy consumption of features (in mAh)

The functionalities include browser states such as idle periods, launching the browser, writing URLs in the navigation bar.

By keeping the same classification as for the total energy, we see that the non-navigation functionalities (writing of URLs, inactivity of the browser, etc.) have a significant impact on total consumption.

Autonomy (hours)

Battery life is the number of hours the user can surf before the battery is completely discharged. The ranking does not change with respect to that of energy, as autonomy is directly related to energy.

We observe that the autonomy can double from 5h to 10h between the most consuming browser (Mint) and the least consuming (Firefox Focus).

Data (Volume of data exchanged) (MB)

Some applications do not manage the cache at all for reasons of data protection and privacy, use proxies that optimize data, have a difference in the implementation of cache management. In addition, if a browser is good, the downside is that a lot more data is potentially loaded in the background. In our methodology, we see it for the New York Times site, which is larger in terms of data.

Here is an example of the measurement iterations on the Amazon site (Amazon.com) that shows the difference in data processing between different browsers.

Memory consumption(RAM) by the browser process (MB)

Memory consumption is important to take into account in a digital service because even the variation in memory consumption does not influence the energy impact, it remains very important to integrate because of the effects of overconsumption on already congested devices. in memory, or older, less powerful, this can create instabilities or applications that cannot operate simultaneously because they compete. In ecological terms, this can of course provides a premature change of device on the user side for a more powerful model to satisfy good user comfort.

The variation goes from 400MB to 1.8GB (approximately half the RAM of the Samsung Galaxy S7).

Let us observe more precisely the behavior of the memory following the sequence:

Launch browser
Browser inactivity
Navigation (Average memory consumption)
Inactivity following navigation
System after closing browser

At the launch of browsers, we have a median memory usage of 413MB. Edge consumes a lot more with 834MB.

If we leave the browser inactive, the memory consumption of most browsers remains fairly stable. Which is pretty good and normal. On the other hand, we see that Edge and Ecosia have a strong increase in memory.

Then, with navigation, the memory consumed increases significantly. This is due to the consumption of navigation engines to analyze and store items. The management of tabs will also play a role. If the browser offloads the memory for the non-active tabs, then the consumption will be lower.

We can note that Firefox Focus, Mint, Duck Duck go, Opera Mini and Qwant overall consume little memory.

When the browser is closed, almost all browsers are no longer in memory. Firefox remains however with 1, GB as well as Chrome and Mint with around 100MB. Probably a bug but it is annoying because elements still occupy the memory and processing operations can also exist: processing operations are confirmed on Firefox and Mint with the rate of CPU consumed by the browser process which remains high.

We can also look at the memory impact of consulting Wikipedia (the basic consumption of the browser is subtracted here).

We understand the difference in memory management between browsers and the potential entropy on heavier sites.

Performance

We measured the time it took to write the URL in the address bar.

This difference in performance can be explained by several factors: network exchanges during entry (auto-completions), processing during entry, search based on known addresses, etc. In the end, for the user, the time to access the site will be longer or shorter. For example on the Wikipedia URL entry on Duck Duck Go a lot of network traffic and CPU processing (peak at 22% CPU).

Unlike the faster Edge which has lower processing in terms of CPU.

By the way, we could have an optimization of all the browsers by limiting its treatments (for example by grouping and spacing the treatments).

Environmental impact

The environmental impact is calculated according to the Greenspector emission factors taking into account the energy consumed and the wear of the battery (impact on manufacturing). The impact of the network and the data center is taken into account with the internet intensity.

This impact is reduced to the consultation of a page.

Firefox Focus by its low consumption is first. Samsung, which has average power consumption, is in second place thanks to good data management.

The most impactful browsers (Ecosia, Edge, Mint and Opera Mini) have high power consumption and poor data management..

Rated browsers

Measured versions : Brave (1.18.75), Chrome (87.0.4280.101), DuckDuckGo (5.72.1), Ecosia (4.1.3), Edge (45.12.4.5121), Firefox (84.1.2), Firefox Focus (8.11.2), Firefox Nightly 201228), Kiwi (Git201216Gen426127039), Opera (61.2.3076.56749), Opera Mini (52.2.2254.54723), Qwant (3.5.0), Vivaldi (3.5.2115.80), Yandex (20.11.3.88), Mint (3.7.2), Samsung (13.0.2.9).

Scenario

For each of its applications, measured on an S7 smartphone (Android 8), the user scenarios were carried out through our Greenspector Test Runner, allowing automated 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 changes are made (even if some options reduce the consumption of energy or resources: data saving mode, dark theme, etc.

However, we encourage you to check the settings of your favorite application to optimize the impact. Here is the evaluated scenario:

· Features evaluation
o Browser launching
o Adding a tab
o Writing a URL in the search bar
o Removing tabs and cleaning the cache

· Navigation
o Launch of 7 sites and wait for 30 seconds to be representative of a user journey

· Brower benchmark
o The Mozilla Kraken benchmark allows you to test JavaScript performance

· Evaluation of periods of inactivity of the browser
o On launch (this allows the home page of the browser to be evaluated)
o After navigation
o After closing the browser (to identify closing problems)

For each iteration, the following tests are carried out:
o Removal of cache and tabs (without measurement)
o First measure
o the Second measure to measure behavior with cache
o Removal of cache and tabs (with measurement)
o System shutdown of the browser (and not just a closure by the user to ensure that the browser is actually closed)

The measurement average therefore takes into account navigation with and without cache.

The main metrics analyzed are display performance, power consumption, data exchange. Other metrics such as CPU consumption, memory consumption, system data, etc. are measured but will not be displayed in this report. Contact Greenspector to find out more.

In order to improve the stability of the measurements, the protocol is fully automated. We use an abstract language of Greenspector test description which allows us strong automation of this protocol. Browser settings are the default. We have not changed any settings in the browser or its search engine.

Each measurement is the average of 5 homogeneous measurements (with a low standard deviation).

Impact assessment

To assess the impacts of infrastructures (datacenter, network) in the carbon projection calculations, we relied on our emission factor base (resulting from our R&D, such as the Impact study of the playing of a Canal + video – Greenspector) with as input the actual measured data of the volume of data exchanged. 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.

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. As a result, it is difficult to compare a study published a year earlier with a recent study.

The Impact of playing a Canal + video study

Posted on December 16, 2020February 11, 2021 by Olivier PHILIPPOT

Reading Time: 16 minutes

Introduction

This study was carried out by Greenspector, a company specializing in the impact of digital technology, and EVEA, specializing in analyzes of the environmental impact of products. This study is based on:

a calculation methodology initiated as part of the CONVINcE project on the energy consumption of video. A project involving several players such as Orange, Sony …
energy and resource consumption measurements carried out on the myCANAL application to support hypotheses
collection of data on the use and infrastructure of Canal +
a bibliographic study to identify and correlate emission factors and energy consumption

Study summary :
– Methodology
– Results : consumption, overall impact and projection
– Areas for improvement
– Conclusion – points to remember
– Chief Digital Officer – Canal+ testimony

Methodology

The functional unit of this study is defined as follows: “Watch 1 hour of video, live or in a replay, on the Canal + interfaces”.

Disclaimer: The purpose of this study is to estimate, by orders of magnitude, the carbon impact of playing a video on Canal + interfaces. To date, it is based on reliable and robust sources and is intended to be representative of the reality of the Canal + infrastructure. However, this is not a complete Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). We rely on LCA methodologies but, for example, we have not performed a sensitivity analysis that would allow min-max deviations on the values. However, this study made it possible to formalize an analysis benchmark for the carbon footprint of a video service, and it could be used to monitor the evolution of the carbon footprint over time. And all this in no way detracts from the consistency of the data for its primary use.

Means of access to services

We have listed different ways to access myCANAL video services. Depending on this type of access, it is necessary to have more or less material (s). This inventory is needed to assess the impact of accessing video services. We have classified the means by category:

Canal + decoder
FAI TV Box
TNT Box
Game console
IP TV (Android TV, Samsung TV)
PC / Mac Multimedia Gateway with ISP Internet Box
Smartphone / Tablet with ISP Internet Box or GSM access

For Decoder, TV / TNT Box, Console, and Multimedia Gateway access, it is necessary to add a TV. We have ruled out all special cases of viewing considered as anecdotal compared to other accesses such as:

Display of the PC stream on a TV,
Multiroom viewing

Regarding the link between the terminals and the Boxes, we will consider that the Wi-Fi connection and the wired connection (Ethernet) have no impact on the consumption of the terminals (PC and TV).

Definition of visualization

Visualization quality influences end-to-end power consumption. We have taken the following 3 main definitions:

SD (Simple Definition)
HD (High Definition)
UHD / 4K (Ultra High Definition)

The definition depends on 3 factors:

compatible program availability
material compatibility in terms of quality
the quality of the connection (the quality of myCANAL videos is adapted according to the connection speed).

Greenspector’s exploratory measurements on myCanal show the impact of SD, HD, or UHD video consumption on smartphones, and then on laptops:

Impact of consuming SD, HD or UHD video on smartphones and laptops

Bibliographic sources were used for the consumption of other platforms such as Consoles (Source 1), TV (Sources 1 and 2), Set-Top-Box (Sources 1 and 2). The consumption of Canal + decoders supplied by Canal + was also used.

Depending on the different equipment configurations, we obtain energy consumption which varies from 1.3 to 108 Wh / h, i.e. a ratio of 1 to 80:

Consommations d'énergie selon les configurations d'équipements

Technologies

Several parameters were taken into account in the calculations because they influence the consumption:

Streaming technology: IPTV (Technology among ISPs), OTT (Over the Top), and Peer To Peer
Linear (Live) or Non-linear (Replay / VOD) signal
Broadcasting (Hertzian, Satellite, IP)

Means of connection to the network

To access the services, the infrastructure considered takes into account: the user’s equipment (Box among others), access to networks (GSM, Fiber, etc.), and the heart of the IP network.

We used calculation methods that are widespread in the scientific literature and standardized by ETSI. The principle is to take an “energy / typical use” ratio in Wh/Go. Although the network infrastructure has a fairly fixed consumption and does not depend on the use, this calculation method makes it possible to assign a global impact to a use (here one hour of video). In addition, it allows to study the improvement of networks in terms of efficiency. Beyond the search for improved energy efficiency, it also makes it possible to assess pressure on the network and to take into account the improvement in the capacity of the infrastructure.

As explained in the CONVINcE report:

“As we are looking for an order of magnitude in energy saving, we suppose that decreasing by 30% the traffic volume in the core network induces a decrease of same ratio in network dimensioning and consequently a decrease of 30% in energy consumption in the core IP network.”

We have studied the literature and listed metrics ranging from 1.3Wh / Go (figure for FTTH fiber) to 600Wh/Go. These factors fluctuate depending on the infrastructure assessment date, method (Top Down or Bottom Up) and technology. It is clear, however, that the efficiency improves over the years.

We have taken:

13 Wh / Go for the core network (source CONVINcE)
30 to 40 Wh / Go for the fixed network
150 Wh / Go for the GSM network (source CONVINcE)

For TNT and satellite, there are few data. However, we based ourselves on a BBC study for TNT.

Content Delivery Network

Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) are servers used to limit the load on “Top of Head” servers (serving videos) and to provide a flow as close as possible to the user. Canal+ uses CDN providers on the market but also uses its own infrastructures.

The methodology for estimating the energy intensity per GB is to bring the estimated consumption of the data center down to throughput during peak periods. Canal+ indeed knows the number of physical servers, their types as well as their speeds. As the servers are hosted by a host, certain assumptions have been made to estimate the actual consumption: among other things, an assumption of PUE (Power Usage Effectiveness) of 2, consumption per server of 250W, and a server load of 50%. The consumption of routers and storage is considered negligible compared to the consumption of servers. (Sources 1, 2 , and 3)

The energy intensity obtained is 0.13 Wh / Go, with a different value between VOD and Live. Note that this value is calculated in the event of a peak (football match for example). It can be lower (use of the total capacity of the data center) or higher (during periods of low traffic).

For lack of data, the hypothesis of the same energy intensity (Wh / Go) was taken for CDNs outside Canal + (50%). For comparison and verification, the studies listed display values from 0.04 to 1 Wh / GB. These differences can be explained by various factors:

– Improving the efficiency of data centers, old studies, therefore, lead to higher figures,

– Top-Down approaches that have a higher estimate than Bottom-Up studies (like this estimate on CDNs).

AWS application servers Excluding video: using Mycanal (catalog presentation, authentication, etc.) and watching videos involve requesting services hosted on servers (rights management, etc.). The APIs used are hosted on AWS instances.

Canal+ rents AWS instances and knows the number of VMs. A part of these VMs is purely dedicated to providing ancillary services to video.

It is difficult to know the power consumption of AWS instances because no communication or information is provided by Amazon. According to an expert, we took a value of 20W (taking into account a PUE of 2) (Source: Interview of experts on virtualization from the company Easyvirt).

We have assumed a uniform distribution of consumption concerning the number of hours visualized and we obtain a value of 0.14 Wh / h.

Video encoding servers

The “Headend” servers allow you to format videos, “package” them to the user’s format … For the OTT, up to 150 packages may be available for a single video. Here is the workflow for the OTT.

The most consuming parts are video encoding and decoding. The workflow is distributed over specific servers (for encoding) and classic servers (for formatting and packaging).

We took the figures from the CONVINcE project (considering Harmony servers identical to those used by Canal +) to estimate the energy, as well as the Canal + server data:

For IPTV: 0.09 Wh for one hour of video
For the OTT: 0.30 Wh for one hour of video

This difference is explained by the fact that OTT is encoded in several formats, unlike IPTV which is encoded in a high definition format.

CO_² emission factors

For energy, we used the values provided by the Open Data Networks Energies database (Work of distributors such as RTE and ADEME). We used intermittent usage which corresponds more to video usage in terms of the period (evening), ie 60g CO2eq / kWh. Part of the broadcasts for the rest of the world has been added taking into account the fact that some users are outside France.

For terminal and server manufacturing emission factors, we used factors provided by Shift Project / IEA.

These factors were brought to the time of viewing by taking into account the lifespans associated with each material.

Note: Regarding the impacts of DTT and satellite, there is a lack of data on infrastructure and emission factors. However, we have integrated this part to understand the orders of magnitude of the impacts. Certain analyzes were carried out only on the IP part in certain cases (for comparison with other studies for example).

Likewise, the impact of the data center manufacturing phase outside of the servers and the network infrastructure was not taken into account as it was considered to be shared and low given the lifespan of the buildings.

Results – global projection

The supply of renewable energy to AWS infrastructures and Canal + CDNs hosted by Interxion has not been taken into account.

In one hour, on average, here are the flows that pass through the network:

500 000 hours of video

900 TB of data

3.6 GB / hr average throughput

The number of viewing hours for Canal+ subscribers has been broken down according to the parameters listed above.

The unit data obtained previously are then projected on these uses to obtain the overall consumption. By taking these results, we can obtain the usage intensities of each part (Terminal, Network, Server) to check the consistency of the overall consumption.

Intensity analysis

The usage intensities obtained can be compared to the Shift Project and IEA studies. This intensity is calculated by taking the distribution of devices, the use of Canal +, and keeping only the IP transfer part (without Satellite or TNT).

It is clear (and shared by the IEA) that the Shift Project study overestimates grid consumption. For servers, we have a fairly low value but are quite confident considering that it is based on data from a known infrastructure (with the uncertainty from Amazon servers and third-party CDNs). The estimate of the terminal part of the Shift Project seems to us to have been underestimated (shared by IEA). It seems that the IEA also underestimated many parameters and seems not to have taken into account the influence of the definition on the consumption of the terminal, certain elements such as boxes, and the consumption of new TVs that consume more. The CONVINcE study and the Sauber/Koomey analysis also validate the consistency of our study.

Impact of playing an hour of video

Across the Canal+ fleet, the average end-to-end consumption is 214 Wh per hour of video. For comparison, the IEA study announces consumption between 120 and 240Wh per hour. The breakdown is as follows:

The impact in average CO2 equivalent by type of access is as follows (with the assumptions specified in the paragraph CO2 emission factors where the manufacture of Satellite, DTT, network and server hosting infrastructures has not been taken. into account)

By taking the type of connection:

The impact ranges from 20 to 66 g CO2 eq, it depends on several parameters:

the more or less energy consumption of the device (for example Smartphone vs TV),
embodied energy and material life,
the means of access to the network (for example GSM access has a greater impact than wired access),
the viewing quality which will influence above all the share of the network (depending on a cost per Wh / Go),
the number of materials to access the service.

By taking real uses (see the end of the document), the average is 28g CO2eq. If we take only the IP part, the average value is 37g CO2eq.

For comparison, the IEA study (2020) announces 8g CO2eq for France (for the use phase only). Another study for the US (2014) announces 360g CO2eq on the use phase (and 420g CO2eq with manufacturing). If we take a US energy mix, we get 202g which brings us closer to this study. The lower value can be explained by the differences in assumptions, in particular on the energy intensity of the network. For example, if we take for our study a TV with 4K reception, IEA announces 20g CO2eq while we rather estimate 14g (37g with the manufacturing phase).

If we look at the usage / manufacture ratio, in some cases the use has more impact (UHD in particular), while in others it is the manufacturing (IP TV or PC in HD for example).

In this same study, the estimate of the purchase of a DVD is 400g EqCO2, which therefore leads to the impact of watching a 2-hour video. 5 times less than that of buying a DVD in France and equivalent in the US.

Consumption and overall impact

The result of the total energy consumption of viewing Canal+ videos over IP is 900 GWh per year with a greenhouse gas impact of 159,000 tonnes CO2eq.

For comparison, annual French consumption is 473 TWh per year (Source RTE) and France’s 2017 carbon footprint (national emissions + imports) is 749 Mt CO2 eq (source: Haut Conseil pour le Climat – 2019 report). The consumption of the Canal + fleet by IP is therefore 0.18% of energy consumption and 0.016% of the French carbon footprint.

The end-to-end distribution is as follows:

Most of the consumption is on the user’s premises (terminal and part of the network access). Indeed, it is necessary to have the equipment (TV, Box, Smartphone …) which is not shared like the servers.

To validate the consistency of this projection, we took the consumption of CDNs specific to CANAL as well as to suppliers. We have a consumption of Canal + CDNs of 2.6 GWh (and estimated at 7 GWh for suppliers) excluding video head-ends which are not at Interxion. We get 12 GWh with the projection, which validates the model.

If we look at the distribution of the impact in greenhouse gases, we have the following distribution:

répartition de l’impact en gaz à effet de serre

A large part of the impact comes from the manufacture of user terminals. On the network part, the manufacture of Boxes (FAI, Satellite …) also has a significant impact.

Areas for improvement to limit the impact of services

General strategy

As we have seen in the network part, efficiency improves. The same is true for terminals. But on the other hand, 4K will become widespread, networks will continue to increase their capacity and therefore increase the overall impact of consumption. By taking one of the hypotheses of a 30% improvement in network efficiency (according to the trends set out in the studies listed in the Networks section of this report) and an increase in average throughput of 20% over 3 years as well as of 20% of the hours viewed, as well as a transfer of 75% of the hours viewed from all interfaces to that of the OTT, we estimate an increase in the energy consumed by 39% and the impact of greenhouse gases greenhouse by 23%. This simplistic projection allows us to approach a more realistic consumption in 3 years.

To offset this increase, and optimize the impact of video playback, we examined the impact of the following projects carried out by Canal+:

Switching from H264 encoding to HEVC
Switching to multicast for live
Switch audio encoding from AAC to AC4
Strengthen bitrate downsizing
Improve the interface and the software layer
Help the user on their digital impact

These projects are not exhaustive. Other possible areas for improvement have been identified which could be launched subsequently by Canal+.

The measurements, estimates, and models that allowed us to obtain the overall impact were used to quantify the estimated gains.

Note on optimizing video servers:

The energy consumption of video servers is very low, as is their impact, as the hardware has a high lifespan (10 years). Several optimizations are under study (video passage Just-in-Time among others). However, these optimizations provide very little end-to-end gain. They are however necessary to optimize management and reduce storage size (impact not taken into account in this study because it is low). Optimizations such as switching to HEVC have a stronger impact (this is confirmed by the CONVINcE study).

“The “Just In Time Transcoding” approach will allow to reduce the number of video representations stored in the CDN and thus its power consumption. This is an end-to-end approach to be compared to the global abovementioned one consisting of reducing the bandwidth of the network by using the most efficient encoding technology (HEVC/AVC).

On CDNs in the same way, even if the impact is low, certain actions such as increasing the rate of use of Canal + infrastructures (using a transfer of flows from supplier CDNs to own CDNs) will improve the efficiency.

Switching from H264 encoding to HEVC

The HEVC video codec is about 20% more efficient than the H264, and a large number of devices are now compatible. For a 3-year projection of consumption, we have taken an increase in the market share of HEVC compatible devices (Box, Smartphone, etc.).

For users who are on 1080p 5Mbits to date (34% of users currently) as for users restricted to 720p for technical reasons (for example a limitation of the network), a 20% drop in consumption is expected. For other 1080p compatible users, there is no decrease in consumption, but an increase in quality with superior grip.

A new even more efficient format begins to appear (AV1), saving an additional 20%. However, very rare equipment is compatible: the transition is largely premature, we would hardly gain anything to date because the fleet is almost zero.

Switching to multicast for live

Broadcasting in hybrid multicast / unicast adaptive streaming for the OTT will greatly reduce the use of bandwidth, and therefore power consumption.

Usable only for live stream, it ensures that a single stream is sent for all customers to the final delivery point. This project will be accompanied by other ancillary projects such as the switch to CMAF packaging. The CMAF audio/video packaging format allows you to have exactly the same video files for all platforms.

Switch audio encoding from AAC to AC4

Currently we mainly use AAC audio, from 96kbits to 128kbits.

The EAC3 + is widely compatible to date and improves audio quality at equivalent bitrate while allowing 5.1. Switching to EAC3+ would be at a fixed rate, without hoping to save bandwidth (while 20% more efficient than EAC3 +).

On the other hand, the new AC4 format is 50% more efficient than the EAC3 + and would allow the audio bit rate to be divided by 2. Even if the share of the video is greater, the gains at the global level are not negligible.

Strengthen bitrate downsizing

To date, except in Africa, or on a cellular network (so as not to empty the customer’s subscription), the quality of the video is adequate . On PC, quality adaptation is possible but access is not necessarily easy.

Making the possibility of reducing the size more accessible by different means (improvement of the interface, communication, etc.) would make it possible to redirect some of the users to a lower but sufficient quality.

Taking into account the increase in video quality and that of network performance, quality caping by users of Canal + services should represent in 3 years a gain of 20% in average speed compared to that generated by uncapped use.

In this axis, several elements have not been included in the gain projection but are possible to help the user in his impact. For example, the Greenspector mobile measurements show that it is better (under favorable conditions such as wifi) to use downloading rather than streaming. Indeed, here is the comparison for a 45mn video (with 5mn download):

Consommation d'énergie d'un streaming vidéo vs d'un téléchargement et lecture vidéo

This is partly explained by the fact that when viewing the downloaded video, the radio cell is not used while it is much more during streaming.

Improve the interface and the software layer

Part of the impact of viewing an hour of a video comes from the interface. Indeed, viewing the catalog, managing subscriptions (via APIs), processing playlists … are necessary functions. Greenspector measurements showed that this could represent 10% of terminal consumption:

Improving the interface on all platforms (smartphone, PC, etc.) would therefore make it possible to obtain significant gains. It would also allow, beyond reducing the impact, to limit the exclusion of certain people as well as the obsolescence of platforms.

Among the actions identified:

Switch to the dark mode
Reduce the overall impact of the software layer
Improve UX
Limit the integration of third-party libraries

Help the user on his digital impact

Much of the impact of video playback is not directly related to video playback. Canal +, through its large audience, can act by making users aware of the impact of digital technology. If some of the users take these actions into account, the impact can be reduced. Among these actions:

Extending the life of the user’s equipment,
Use Ethernet rather than Wifi, rather than 4G,
Extinction of equipment out of use.

Results

Here is the projection of the various energy gains:

The improvements compensate for the increase in energy consumption and even allow a gain of 14% compared to the current situation. For the greenhouse gas impact, we obtain a gain of 8%.

There are many ways to reduce the carbon impact of streaming activities for Canal + by 30%, and the actions put in place will make it possible to make a gain of 26% on the environmental footprint of services and in particular -31% for the consumption in OTT only.

Conclusion – to remember

This study has uncertainties on future use, on the emission factors of each element as well as on the potential gains. However, the objective is to challenge the choices or even to rule them out (some actions not listed in this document have, for example, already been discarded), if they had no gain. One of the first actions is to be able to measure yourself in order to improve. This is the goal of this phase. Now comes that of improvement.

The environmental interest of the sites identified by Canal+ has been confirmed. Their implementation will make it possible to offset the effects of the growth in uses, or even more, in the years to come.

The conclusions of this evaluation evolve with many technological parameters but in summary:

Work on video and audio compression formats while taking into account new formats optimized by manufacturers.
Optimize the consumption of user functions to access the content.
Involve/guide users in the choices according to the context of use (streaming, type of network, device screen format, etc.) and lead them to extend the life of the equipment to reduce the impact.
Implement hybrid multicast / unicast adaptive streaming for OTT to dramatically reduce bandwidth usage and power consumption.
Pursue end-to-end measures to avoid future decisions that shift the impact without reducing it

Pierre-Emmanuel Ferrand, Chief Digital Officer at CANAL+

Testimony

– How does this assessment and improvement process fit into the Group’s strategy?

CANAL+ is anchored in its time. We have decided to become more involved in a major issue of our time, dear to our subscribers and users of myCANAL: the protection of our environment. CANAL+ was very early on as a pioneer in eco-responsible approaches. first. In addition to the rental model of decoders, which is very virtuous from the point of view of the circular economy, Canal+ organized in 1988 the recovery of old decoders to ensure their return to service or their recycling. Moreover, as a publisher, We have produced eco-responsible productions including series that have been exemplary on this subject, Baron Noir, L’Effondrement, and more recently OVNI (S).

-What main lessons/contributions do we draw from this work (on the design of services)?

This work allows us first of all to identify the technical projects to prioritize to minimize the carbon footprint of myCANAL video consumption as much as possible. At the same time, the lessons guide us on the awareness messages to relay to our users, throughout our future developments. This commitment to cooperation between our technical developments and our users is the key to consumption that has less impact on the environment.

– What role do users play?

Protecting the environment is a priority for them. Their role is central to our approach. Our challenge is to offer them a platform offering the best content and the best video quality adapted to their equipment and their reception capacities to reduce the effects on the environment. By raising their awareness and supporting them in responsible actions, they too will be able to get involved, as they do in other areas for a more eco-responsible society.

Digital sobriety comparison of 3 direct messaging apps for business.

Posted on December 9, 2020December 10, 2020 by Kimberley DERUDDER

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 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.

Apps	Energy consumption par second (µAh/s)	Exchanged Data (KB)	CPU (%)
Skype	45.17	0	0.11
Slack	57.14	42.6	1.16
Teams	44.08	0	0

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)	Skype	Slack	Teams
Launch of the application	4,52	4,13	5,88
Opening a conversation	1,76	1,82	8,95
Sending a text message	33,3	31,78	32,19
Sending an image	15,16	9,07	14,46
Sending an attachment	10,13	12,13	10,99

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:

Applications	Duration of the scenario (in second)	Energy consumption (mAh)	Exchanged data (Mo)	Carbon impact projection (gEqCO2)
Slack	24,84	2,37	0,309	0,065
Teams	24,42	3,9	23	2,336

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.

I want to measure my application!

See the consumer instant messaging comparison

Integrate a third-party service: is it dangerous for your visitors privacy, which impact on the environment? The Youtube case.

Posted on October 6, 2020October 7, 2020 by Olivier PHILIPPOT

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Third-party service integration makes it easy to quickly add functionality to a site such as a video or social network integration (see the case of Twitter integration). The providers of these tools have worked to make technology integration quick and easy. And the technique is there. But at what cost?

Energy consumption of the third-party service Youtube

We observe an increase in this type of third-party service on our measurements and abnormal overconsumption. This is the case with many sites and even government websites.

The YouTube integration is a good case study to explain this effect. In just a few lines, it is possible to display a video on any site:

But what is the result in terms of user impact? Here is the result we get in terms of power consumption on a Nexus 6 smartphone:

Consommation d'énergie du services tiers Youtube

Reference: Phone discharge speed in uAh / s (OS, Browser …)
Loading: Speed of the first 20 seconds of loading
Idle Foreground: Inactive site speed in the foreground
Scroll: Speed when the user scrolls down the page
Idle Background: download speed when the browser (and therefore the site) is in the background

This is a government website. Discharge rates exceed our thresholds for many steps. For loading, the speed is more than 2 times that of reference. For the idle foreground or phase of inactivity in the foreground, the consumption should be identical to that of reference. This consumption is abnormal for a site that seems quite light.

We see that Chrome’s CPU process goes up to 10% every second. This explains the overconsumption of energy. By profiling the JavaScript calls in the development tools, we observe processes from base.js which are from the YouTube framework:

Note that this processing also impacts scrolling and loading. Is this an expected operation? A bug or a bad implementation? We haven’t been that far into the analysis.

When we look at the page loading, on 1.2MB, nearly 600KB is used for the YouTube plugin. 50kb of CSS and 550kb of Javascript. To the necessary processing, add the heavy CPU usage to parse and run scripts.

Significant point: No video appears on this page. The integration of the plugin is surely necessary for another page. This makes the waste even more critical, it is all the more annoying that the French tested website is public and widely used: Impots.gouv !

Best practices for integrating a video

1 – Directly embed video without third-party services

It is possible to use free solutions without plugins. Integration via HTML5 is native.

2 – Embed an image

Display an image with the same rendering as the video allows to reduce to 1 request. If the user clicks on the video, then the scripts will be loaded and the video launched ultimately lazy loading.

We also did the exercise on a page of our Greenspector website:

On one of our “Case Study” pages was embedded a YouTube video. We replaced this integration by displaying an image (opposite) representing the old integrated video. This modification allowed us to go from a Greenspector ecoscore from 59/100 to 75/100 characterized by an energy gain of -12% in the loading stage, -10% in Idle and -15% in scroll.

3 – Integrate the plugin only on the desired page

A solution that is not ideal, but preferable to the existing one, is to only use scripts when the page requires a video.

What will it save?

First of all the performance. A large portion of processing related to site wait times is dedicated to third-party services. This is even more true for the YouTube plugin. On the audited site, the size can be reduced by 2, and the loading time reduced by at least 30%.

Power consumption will also be reduced and even more important than data size or performance. In fact, in addition to saving energy from charging, consumption in idle or inactivity phase will be reduced.

Bonus: user privacy

The other problem with this type of project is the use of tracker and user data recovery. Not integrating a third-party service resolves potential issues of data leakage and GDPR non-compliance. By the way, the YouTube plugin seems to allow version without cookies via the call to the URL: https://www.youtube-nocookie.com.

Like any third-party service, it is not that simple. Even with this no-cookie integration, user data is stored:

The audited site is therefore not GDPR compatible! To manage this, you must ask the user for consent explicitly:

The solution of a hosted video or static image will also manage this.

Conclusion

If the integration of a video is necessary, think about it quietly and consider the impacts on resource consumption and GDPR. There are technical solutions more respectful of the user, they are initially perhaps a little more complex to set up, however, the solutions will naturally become simpler and more widespread.