Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a web dev… I honestly have never thought of it that way in terms of cost. I would rather a user see the whole page, consume all the content, it’s not a big cost.
Then you’ve probably just not worked on pages of that scale so far. Some very large sites maintain alternate versions of images in chance the browser supports something more efficient than JPEG; that can save about 30% – at the expense of a lot of complexity and extra server side storage. Yet they still do it: It’s still worth it for them. But nothing beats not loading the image at all! As a web user, I personally al…
It’s just progressive enhancement: The browsers that support a format get the lighter version, the ones that don’t, get a heavier fallback.