5 ms·

You don't seem to understand the technology or the argument you made. The URL bar says google.com because google.com is serving the content you are reading. I

You don't seem to understand the technology or the argument you made. The URL bar says google.com because google.com is serving the content you are reading. In other words, it exactly honors the "fundamental contract" you find so important. I also dispute your qualitative opinion that nbcnews.com works "just fine". If I load their top story currently from AMP it loads in about half a second. If I visit it from nbcnews.com it renders in about seven seconds and doesn't finish loading for about 90 seconds, and then when it does I get a big popover survey/ad thing with a dismiss button that's too small to touch. The mobile experience on this site is far from fine.

detaro 10y ago
And what happens if you load the AMP version from their server, which IMHO is the fairer comparison when discussing complaints about the Google cache of it? AMP as a "document standard" on top of HTML would IMHO already solve a lot.
- davewasthere 10y ago
  It's not really a fairer comparison, because their non-AMP view is what they currently think is appropriate to serve. It's not. The web has bloated out of control - and while I'm not a fan-boy, I at least think AMP encourages the right things and is a progressive step forward in the right direction. I _like_ viewing AMP pages from an end-user perspective. And I don't think they're terribly onerous from a publisher/dev perspective.
  - detaro 10y ago
    Google could easily "motivate" them to provide AMP pages (as they have successfully done) without adding their own caching layer, which the complaints above mostly seemed to be about.
    - dandv 10y ago
      This post explains very well the #1 benefit of AMP caches (yes, there can be more than Google's, and Cloudflare has just released their own cache): pre-rendering: https://medium.com/@pbakaus/why-amp-caches-exist-cd7938da2456 https://medium.com/@pbakaus/why-amp-caches-exist-cd7938da245...

detaro 10y ago

And what happens if you load the AMP version from their server, which IMHO is the fairer comparison when discussing complaints about the Google cache of it? AMP as a "document standard" on top of HTML would IMHO already solve a lot.

davewasthere 10y ago
It's not really a fairer comparison, because their non-AMP view is what they currently think is appropriate to serve. It's not. The web has bloated out of control - and while I'm not a fan-boy, I at least think AMP encourages the right things and is a progressive step forward in the right direction. I _like_ viewing AMP pages from an end-user perspective. And I don't think they're terribly onerous from a publisher/dev perspective.
- detaro 10y ago
  Google could easily "motivate" them to provide AMP pages (as they have successfully done) without adding their own caching layer, which the complaints above mostly seemed to be about.
  - dandv 10y ago
    This post explains very well the #1 benefit of AMP caches (yes, there can be more than Google's, and Cloudflare has just released their own cache): pre-rendering: https://medium.com/@pbakaus/why-amp-caches-exist-cd7938da2456 https://medium.com/@pbakaus/why-amp-caches-exist-cd7938da245...