3 ms·
OP does not explain WHY he wants AMP to be optional. In the other article the author says "I don’t know why I do it, but for some reason it just doesn’t feel “r
by toephu2 9y ago
OP does not explain WHY he wants AMP to be optional. In the other article the author says "I don’t know why I do it, but for some reason it just doesn’t feel “right” to me to consume the content through the AMP. It feels slightly off, and I want the real deal even if it takes a few seconds extra to load."
That is a weak argument to persuade a major corporation to change the way something behaves or give the option to change the way something behaves.
OP should put himself in the shoes of Twitter: "What do I get by making AMP optional?"
...now you know what their response will be.
Edit: fair rebuttal, thanks for the response
- emn13 9y agoWell, why AMP, and not plain HTML? It's pretty clear at this point that AMP isn't any faster than simple HTML, and some of the limitations are clearly shift control (and advantage) to platforms like google, away from the hosting site. I mean; stripped down pages are way overdue, but it's mixed in with some unnecessary powergrabbing and arbitrary restrictions. And it's not like it's hard to strip down pages.
- akras14 9y agoIt's a valid criticism of my earlier post, I did have a follow up where I tried to do a better job explaining why: https://www.alexkras.com/i-decided-to-disable-amp-on-my-site/ https://www.alexkras.com/i-decided-to-disable-amp-on-my-site... Also check out: https://www.alexkras.com/some-thoughts-on-amp-in-conde-nast/ https://www.alexkras.com/some-thoughts-on-amp-in-conde-nast/ For why I think it is bad for the publishers.