4 ms·

So AMP benefits google because faster page loads = more DFP views (and also more $ for publishers); AMP benefits consumers because JS is not murdering their mem

by 0003 9y ago

So AMP benefits google because faster page loads = more DFP views (and also more $ for publishers); AMP benefits consumers because JS is not murdering their memory and dataplans. It seems like web developers are the ones that hate it.

mthoms 9y ago
> more $ for publishers I'm curious... What are you basing this on? Is this proven? Besides, do you really think short term cash is the only thing that publishers should optimize for?
- adyavanapalli 9y ago
  I think google, which you can google ;), published a study showing that users are more likely to stay on a webpage if it loads under some threshold time. And if this is the case, users are more likely read the content and see the ads on said webpage. Hence, more $$$ for publishers.
  - mthoms 9y ago
    But AMP doesn't allow traditional ads right? Only Google-approved ones. So, how are you going to monetize? Google ads of course. Don't you think it's a funny coincidence that this project to "speed up the web" also results in giving more ad revenue to Google?
MBCook 9y ago
Have you been to Daring Fireball? It's one of the fastest loading pages on the whole Internet because it's not crapped up with lots of stuff. Gruber's site is proof you don't need AMP to have fast loads. I honestly don't know this: how exactly are AMP pages monetized? Weren't there articles recently that publishers who went with AMP or Facebook's version saw steep declines in revenue?
- tjl 9y ago
  I can't imagine that AMP would load much faster that the current Daring Fireball design. If it's faster, I would probably guess that it's just the different routes between the AMP cache on Google and Daring Fireball's host. But, DF isn't using AMP. I seem to recall that publishers who used the Facebook version saw a decline in revenue, so I think you're right about that point. I don't know about AMP, though.
- __derek__ 9y ago
  > how exactly are AMP pages monetized? AMP has an ad component.[1] It seems to have gotten a lot of ad network participation now, but it was pretty limited (i.e. effectively no money via AMP views) last year when I was working for a major content publisher. It's undoubtable that the company lost a lot of ad revenue in exchange for protecting its position in Google search results. [1]: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/extensions/amp-ad/amp-ad.md https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/extensions...
  - MBCook 9y ago
    Thanks

by 0003 9y ago

mthoms 9y ago

> more $ for publishers I'm curious... What are you basing this on? Is this proven? Besides, do you really think short term cash is the only thing that publishers should optimize for?

adyavanapalli 9y ago
I think google, which you can google ;), published a study showing that users are more likely to stay on a webpage if it loads under some threshold time. And if this is the case, users are more likely read the content and see the ads on said webpage. Hence, more $$$ for publishers.
- mthoms 9y ago
  But AMP doesn't allow traditional ads right? Only Google-approved ones. So, how are you going to monetize? Google ads of course. Don't you think it's a funny coincidence that this project to "speed up the web" also results in giving more ad revenue to Google?

MBCook 9y ago

Have you been to Daring Fireball? It's one of the fastest loading pages on the whole Internet because it's not crapped up with lots of stuff. Gruber's site is proof you don't need AMP to have fast loads. I honestly don't know this: how exactly are AMP pages monetized? Weren't there articles recently that publishers who went with AMP or Facebook's version saw steep declines in revenue?

tjl 9y ago
I can't imagine that AMP would load much faster that the current Daring Fireball design. If it's faster, I would probably guess that it's just the different routes between the AMP cache on Google and Daring Fireball's host. But, DF isn't using AMP. I seem to recall that publishers who used the Facebook version saw a decline in revenue, so I think you're right about that point. I don't know about AMP, though.
__derek__ 9y ago
> how exactly are AMP pages monetized? AMP has an ad component.[1] It seems to have gotten a lot of ad network participation now, but it was pretty limited (i.e. effectively no money via AMP views) last year when I was working for a major content publisher. It's undoubtable that the company lost a lot of ad revenue in exchange for protecting its position in Google search results. [1]: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/extensions/amp-ad/amp-ad.md https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/extensions...
- MBCook 9y ago
  Thanks