The only problem with this article is that it makes the assumption that app downloads are correlated with resource loading speed, which really could be completely incorrect.<p>The hacker news traffic was very targeted, watching a specific video for the content. Assuming the HN traffic was during period which saw 6-8% conversion, the real cause of the low conversion rate is almost certainly due to people clicking through from HN, watching the video and leaving without looking at the site at all. I don't even own an iPad, and frankly when someone links a video on HN or similar social sites, I watch the video and leave, regardless of the video sharing site.<p>I'd assume their more day-to-day traffic is getting there via other sources. Perhaps people saying "check out this app", perhaps people coming through search engines looking for ipad related video - essentially a much more targeted audience.<p>I could be completely wrong. Based on the information presented, I've made a huge number of assumptions. However, I'd be truly surprised if decreasing the load time of your static assets is really the driving factor in visitor conversions.<p>Edit: It seems their "App store downloads to web visit ratio" isn't really a conversion factor as much as a comparison of the two. My interpretation of it is that they now receive 28% of their web visits in downloads (for every hundred web visitors, they receive 28 app "downloads" (although it's not clear whether a "download" is a video load, or an app install)). Surely that's just because their web traffic has fallen after the HN spike? I'm not convinced that there's any real basis to the key claim made at the bottom.