You must log in or register to comment.
What does this save, like a milliwatt per year? One of the stupidest things I have ever seen.
Sending the JavaScript to do this literally uses more electricity than this saves.
This is classic. Corpos that are the biggest polluters are also the ones that push hardest on the idea of “carbon footprint”
The more they can convince people that climate change is their fault, the less likely people vote for a government that will regulate the corpos
Back in CRT days, the difference between full white and full black could be as much as 100W. Before dark mode existed, people developed sites like Blackle to reduce the power usage of Googling.
This is very strangely phrased. The “sustainable experience” to me suggests my personal experience like eye fatigue even tho “sustainable” is not the most fitting word for that. But the “contribute” suggests ecological subjects. Whatever it may be it is ur average corporate paternalism nonetheless.
Edit: Maybe im off here it may solely be greenwashing, the eye comfort take doesnt really make sense.
They try to greenwash, just just end up applying more clearcoat.
Contribute even more by closing the browser and not buying anything from this shithole of a company.
Stupid because it makes zero difference for any screen that uses a backlight, which is most of them. And then they could just set dark mode as the default if it actually mattered, which it doesn’t. You can be stupid, but to be really stupid takes a corpo like Nestle.
For oleds, it makes a difference and not an insignificant number of smartphones today use OLED screens.
However, if the microwatt-hour of battery saved by browsing a shitty website of a shitty company for a few minutes saves the planet is another story…
The thing that’ll save more microwatts is if they removed about 3 dozen of the tracking scripts from the website but we all know no company website will ever do that
I hate nestle so fucking much its almost unhealthy
This is the most pathetic attempt at greenwashing I have ever seen.
Greenwashing bullshit.
You can be sure that they are counting every hypothetical drop of energy saved this way and taking credit for it to their benefit somewhere.
If dark mode is so good, why isn’t it the default?
I wonder how many users have to switch to dark mode with how many screen time to compensate for any meaningful amount.
Edit: I tried updating this, when I submitted sh.itjust.works was down and I lost it… the edit that is. Anyway I have now updated some grammar and put in some more context AND a tl;dr at the bottom. All for the low low price of my hyper focus.
Alright, it’s math time.
A quick google comes up with this blog post, which I haven’t vetted or even read at all, it just has a table with some stats https://dodonut.com/blog/does-dark-mode-save-battery/. I should probably also mention that I am going to use the most impressive savings in the following. Actual savings may be as little as a 4th.
Apparently going to dark mode with 100% brightness provide a net saving of 40% on a pixel 2. Let’s assume this is universally true for all OLED and AMOLED displays, LCD users won’t see a difference,
neither will CRTs but(that was false, I’m an idiot) … I don’t think that I’ve heard of a CRT display on a phone.40%? That sounds like a lot, doesn’t it?
Well yes and no, in relative terms it’s impressive, but it really depends on absolute terms. So how much does a phone use? The pixel 2 from before comes with a 10.39Wh battery, let’s assume an average use of 80% per day, then that comes out to 8.32Wh per day per phone. That means that the 40% reduction is 3.33Wh daily.
Is that a lot? Depends, if your only power source is a potato with a bit of copper and a galvanized nail, then yes, otherwise no.
Over the course of a year 3.33Wh a day comes to 1.215kWh.
Let’s put that into some context. The largest Vestas offshore wind turbine is the 15MW V236 https://www.vestas.com/en/products/offshore/V236-15MW. It can produce 80GWh annually. With the saving of 1.215kWh per phone, then for every approx 66 million OLED phones, we can skip erecting one offshore wind turbine.
But let’s look at a global impact. As of yesterday there were 8.05 billion people breathing on the planet. Let’s say they all achieve the maximum saving of 1.215kWh annually. That’s 9.78TWh. Presently there’s a handful of projects planned with the V236, https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/04/03/vestas-15-mw-prototype-now-at-full-throttle/, totalling 7.3 GW, 486.6 units (I’ve got the figures for each project and added them up, so the number of units is an approximation) or 38.9TWh annually. So get everyone to achieve maximum saving, with technology most doesn’t have, and we can save a quarter of the planned pre-order of a turbine model that isn’t even done with testing.
tl;dr: dark mode does save power, but at best its effect is miniscule, and realistically utterly insignificant.
I don’t think that I’ve heard of a CRT display on a phone
BALLER. samsung i hope you are listening
My screen is not amoled 🥲
But you can compensate by giving them your ground water.
If i get my share why not
On LCD displays dark mode actually uses more electricity; the brightness is always there, and you need to power the liquid-crystal layer to block that light to result in darker colours.
This whole myth about darker screens saving energy goes way back to the old CRT days when it actually did save some energy.
Yall remember Blackle?
In case you are using an OLED screen or one of its variants, the difference is noticeable since they turn off the pixels that are black and, therefore, less electricity is consumed.
