Facebook has received some criticism over the years for downgrading the quality of videos uploaded to their platform. This is often noticeable when a high-quality video looks pixelated or blurry after being posted to Facebook. There are several reasons why Facebook compresses and downgrades video quality that are important to understand.
Bandwidth and Infrastructure Limitations
One of the main reasons Facebook compresses video is due to bandwidth and infrastructure limitations. Facebook serves billions of users and has billions of videos hosted on its servers. If all of those videos were streamed and viewed in their original high resolution and bitrate, it would overwhelm Facebook’s servers and bandwidth capacity very quickly.
By compressing and downgrading the quality of videos, especially to lower resolutions like 720p or 1080p, Facebook is able to reduce the strain on their systems. The lower quality video files take up less storage space and bandwidth to deliver to users. This allows them to optimize costs and deliver videos efficiently to the billions of people using the platform daily.
The Massive Scale of Facebook’s User Base
To understand the infrastructure challenges Facebook faces, it helps to comprehend the massive scale at which they operate. As of 2023, Facebook has:
- 2.96 billion monthly active users
- 2 billion daily active users on average
- Over 300 million photos uploaded per day
- 500+ hours of video uploaded every minute
Delivering high-quality video at scale to that many users worldwide would be incredibly challenging without compression. By rolling out video compression across the board, it helps ease the demand on their systems.
Compatibility Across Devices and Connections
Another reason Facebook compresses videos is to ensure compatibility and performance across the wide range of devices, connections, and bandwidth capabilities used to access the platform. Facebook has users in both developed and developing countries accessing the platform on everything from high-end smartphones to low-cost feature phones.
If Facebook did not downsample the quality of videos, many users would not be able to stream or even download the videos to watch them. The high-resolution original videos would load slowly or not at all for many users, especially those on slower 2G/3G connections and cheaper devices.
Top Countries by Facebook Users
| Country | Users |
|---|---|
| India | 350 million |
| Indonesia | 170 million |
| United States | 230 million |
| Brazil | 150 million |
As this table shows, many of Facebook’s top user bases like India and Indonesia tend to have slower average internet speeds, making high resolution video more difficult to deliver at scale.
Business Incentives to Save Costs
On the business side of things, Facebook also has financial incentives to compress and downgrade video quality. As mentioned, lower resolution video takes up less storage space and bandwidth to deliver.
By rolling out blanket compression and limiting video quality, Facebook is able to optimize their infrastructure costs and spend less money on data delivery and storage to host videos. These cost savings can be substantial at the scale of their operations.
While users may want the highest quality viewing experience, Facebook has to balance user experience with real-world costs and technical limitations of delivering flawless HD video to billions of global users. The financial piece is a reality of running such a large platform.
Video Compression Saves Facebook Storage and Delivery Costs
- 500+ hours of video uploaded every minute
- High-quality HD video requires significant bandwidth and storage
- Compressing video reduces storage needs by ~70% on average
- Lower resolution video costs far less to deliver to users
- These savings multiply at the scale Facebook operates
Copyright and Piracy Concerns
Copyright and piracy concerns also play a role in Facebook’s video compression policies. By downgrading quality and resolution, it makes videos harder to pirate and download from their platform.
Facebook has dealt with some backlash and legal issues around copyrighted material being shared without permission. If they allowed videos to retain their original high resolution, it would be easier for people to illegally download and redistribute that content.
The compression acts as a form of light “DRM” – digital rights management. It helps prevent the platform from being abused for easy piracy at scale. The lower quality makes videos shared non-commercially less attractive and reduces legal risks.
Video Quality Impacts Piracy Potential
| Video Quality | Piracy Risk Level |
|---|---|
| 240p | Low |
| 720p | Moderate |
| 1080p | High |
| 4K | Very High |
As seen above, higher resolution correlates to higher risk of illegal downloading and distribution. Facebook’s compression helps mitigate this.
Algorithms Focused on Efficiency, Not Max Quality
When you combine the infrastructure restraints, costs, and compatibility needs at Facebook’s scale, it leads to algorithms optimized for efficiency rather than maximum quality. Facebook’s video transcoding and compression algorithms are designed to deliver “good enough” quality to billions of people.
The compression algorithms balance quality, compatibility across devices, and delivery costs. Rather than focusing on visually lossless quality, they optimize for acceptable visual quality at minimal file sizes.
The automated algorithms encode and process videos by the millions daily. They are biased more towards compression and accessibility over uncompressed quality and resolution. This systematic approach is necessary for Facebook’s business model and global user base.
Goals of Facebook’s Video Processing Algorithms
- Compress file size as much as possible
- Optimize for compatible viewing on all devices
- Reduce bandwidth and delivery costs
- Encoded at scale across billions of videos
- Focused on efficiency over maximum visual quality
User Habits and Interactions
How people watch and engage with videos on Facebook also influences their compression approach. The fact is most people passively scroll through videos in their feeds on mobile devices, watching short clips for just a few seconds.
With short watch times, small screens, and passive consumption, highest visual quality is not always the priority. Good enough quality that loads and plays quickly tends to be what keeps people engaged on mobile feeds.
Facebook has likely done the analytics to determine what level of compression still leaves videos looking decent during these quick, casual interactions. Over-compressing risks too much visible artifacting during short views.
Typical Video Watch Patterns on Facebook
- Very short average view times (under 60 seconds)
- Mostly watched on mobile feeds passively
- Smaller screens hide compression artifacts
- Quick interactions don’t require maximum quality
- “Good enough” quality meets passive user needs
Conclusion
In summary, Facebook’s compression and downgrading of video quality is driven by a mix of technical, business, and user experience factors. The infrastructure and bandwidth needed to deliver HD video to billions is prohibitive. Compression saves substantial storage and data delivery costs at their scale. Users often watch short clips passively in feeds, meaning top quality is not always necessary.
The approach minimizes infrastructure expense, maximizes compatibility, reduces piracy risks, and still delivers acceptable quality for typical user viewing habits on mobile devices and feeds. While some quality is sacrificed, for Facebook’s needs it optimizes efficiency and costs at the global level. Given the constraints they face, reasonable compression provides the greatest quality possible to the most people.