4 ms·
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 con
by 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 agoGoogle 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 agoThis 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...