Thank you for taking a moment to respond; if I can get another question in, can you tell me a bit about how this scales with, say 10 or 40 images on a page as far as filesize goes? 150k in the context of modern web pages is not too far off from being realistic as an ad solution, depending on how many pictures it takes to reach the tipping point of page load time.

I have a test page that does 1000 images with 2-4 PLEENQs on each image, and performance is good with an 8-gig of ram mac mini and an iPhone 5 (my test platform for the mobile version).

I do about 10 million impressions a day, and the request to the server is a pretty consistent ~200ms, along with an async load that won't affect overall page load.

That's not exactly answering the question I was asking, regarding file size.

Oh, I read that as performance on the page for some reason. File size is exactly the same regardless of how many images/PLEENQs.

You consider 280k script lightweight? Wow.

Have you tested this on some cheap, low-end, Chinese phones with the default browser?

> > It's not lightweight -- the average script include I have right now is around 280k.

> You consider 280k script lightweight? Wow.

They do not. :P

Right, I probably misread it. Sorry. The 150k version will be the lightweight.

FWIW I certainly agree that it is an awful lot of JavaScript, even at 150kB. That sort of thing annoys me and I try to block it.