3 ms·

It is helping this when you consider all the JS is cached because they've visited an AMP page before.

• pmlnr 9y ago
  No, they are not, that's a misconception. Many low end devices simply lack the capacity to efficiently cache this many things, so they are going to re-download it once it's purged. For the downvoters: https://danluu.com/web-bloat/ https://danluu.com/web-bloat/
  • endorphone 9y ago
    Many low end devices simply lack the capacity to efficiently cache this many things Very low-end devices still have an outrageous amount of memory and storage compared to the scopes we're talking about. In the actual anecdotes of people in India expressing their good user experience with AMP, actual results seem to differ. But as a North American with a GS8 and a very fast LTE connection, I still love getting AMP results. Just confining to best practices is alone worth it.
  • monokh 9y ago
    Oh I see. So low end devices in india which are predominantly android smart phones do not have the capacity to cache 500kb of frequently used JS? Reducing the overall page size of a given page doesn't help Optimizing rendering for content first and images loaded as required doesn't help Serving pages from a super fast global CDN doesn't help And prefetching content behind the scenes also doesn't help I think you should take these to Google because it seems like they've totally goofed this AMP thing!
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • pmlnr 9y ago
      All those 500KB JS adds up, and the memory on those devices are shared with the fb, twitter, whatever bloatware apps. And yes, amp is a horrible idea. Block ad networks instead.
      • ucaetano 9y ago
        "All those 500KB JS adds up, and the memory on those devices are shared with the fb, twitter, whatever bloatware apps." No, those are pushed out of memory. "And yes, amp is a horrible idea. Block ad networks instead." Well, just don't access any ad-funded content. You can't have the cake and eat it too.