5 ms·

AMP is the solution the internet deserves for not coming up with the solution the internet needed.

sliverstorm 9y ago
Post-AMP, it's easy to see why it never got solved before. Many, many detractors commenting along the lines of: I was perfectly able to make my personal website fast; there is no problem, no one needs AMP.
- Spivak 9y ago
  I mean the detractors are still right. The sites that AMP is relevant for are mostly static content that can be made blazing fast without AMP. The kick in the pants was really Google throwing their weight around something which could have been done in a number of different things. Hell Google could have charged to use their CDN in exchange for totally not favorable ranking and an icon and raked in the cash.
  - sliverstorm 9y ago
    That's why it so perfectly illustrates the problem. The detractors are correct, a website can be made fast without AMP. But that isn't the problem AMP solves. To draw a crude analogy- I don't have a problem with alcohol, I don't drink in excess and that's all there is to it. So clearly, there's no reason for AA or any other detox program to exist.
    - CaptSpify 9y ago
      The problem AMP is trying to solve is very real. The way AMP is trying to solve the problem though, is bullshit. If sites are too large, and load too slow, derank them. That's a much better method than pushing sites to use a shitty lock-in system.
- baldfat 9y ago
  I don't see it that way. I think AMP was a wake up call to other websites and everyone starting prioritizing speed and responsiveness. Early 2000s we had crappy Flash Websites that took a minute to load. I refused to build websites with Flash and would only build websites that were HTML and JavaScript (I HATED JS back than (Maybe it was just me)). I stopped getting business because that norm was slow websites that were pretty and had animations. After Mobile took off in the early 2010's we had faster connections and those Flash sites worked much faster, except for mobile. Now everything is responsive and 2 or 3 seconds feels like a lifetime. AMP changed the internet in my opinion, and maybe it isn't needed any more.
TulliusCicero 9y ago
This is a perfect way of putting it. "You don't need AMP to make websites fast!" And yet, most popular websites sans AMP were/are indeed quite slow.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mimsee 9y ago
  And yet, it's a miracle how a few lines of CSS & JS server from a high-speed server makes a website load faster. So, no, we don't need AMP to make webpages faster. To make a website fast (OTTOMH): 1. Optimize the content we deliver, (HTML, CSS, JS, etc...). Minimise the time for all content and First Meaningful Paint. 2. CDN servers. Bring the servers closer to the user, geographically. 3. File compression during transport. Stuff like gzip and HTTP/2.0 (which isn't a compression algo, but inherently makes the pages load faster, which was the objective) Edit(s): Some formatting & content, somewhat new to HN
  - TulliusCicero 9y ago
    You're missing the point. I recognize that it was quite possible to make fast websites without AMP, but as a consumer, a theoretical solution that few take advantage of is useless to me. AMP got (some) websites to actually be fast, which is a lot more useful than a hypothetical.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Only because they are using piles of JavaScript, that could fit several floppies required for Quake, to display static text.
- CaptSpify 9y ago
  Because Google encourages the giant, slow sites by putting them at the top. Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that Google pushes these sites to the top, then drops in a tool to "fix" the problem?
  - 9y ago
tboyd47 9y ago
Except that there was no problem until DoubleClick flooded the internet with intrusive, insecure, distracting CPM-driven ads.
- icelancer 9y ago
  Uncompressed, unbounded images, and lengthy nonsensical Javascript predates ads by quite some time. I remember those days well enough.
  - tboyd47 9y ago
    Was AMP the reason people stopped doing that?
- debt 9y ago
  Which is owned by Google.
  - tboyd47 9y ago
    Exactly. One hand washes the other.
rocqua 9y ago
Why does that solution require google lock-in? The AMP spec is about speed, that doesn't require being served from a google.com domain. If there are speed benefits to caching by google, why make that mandatory?
- kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
  I specifically said 'deserve' because I don't think it's the ideal solution.

Post-AMP, it's easy to see why it never got solved before. Many, many detractors commenting along the lines of: I was perfectly able to make my personal website fast; there is no problem, no one needs AMP.

Spivak 9y ago
I mean the detractors are still right. The sites that AMP is relevant for are mostly static content that can be made blazing fast without AMP. The kick in the pants was really Google throwing their weight around something which could have been done in a number of different things. Hell Google could have charged to use their CDN in exchange for totally not favorable ranking and an icon and raked in the cash.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  That's why it so perfectly illustrates the problem. The detractors are correct, a website can be made fast without AMP. But that isn't the problem AMP solves. To draw a crude analogy- I don't have a problem with alcohol, I don't drink in excess and that's all there is to it. So clearly, there's no reason for AA or any other detox program to exist.
  - CaptSpify 9y ago
    The problem AMP is trying to solve is very real. The way AMP is trying to solve the problem though, is bullshit. If sites are too large, and load too slow, derank them. That's a much better method than pushing sites to use a shitty lock-in system.
baldfat 9y ago
I don't see it that way. I think AMP was a wake up call to other websites and everyone starting prioritizing speed and responsiveness. Early 2000s we had crappy Flash Websites that took a minute to load. I refused to build websites with Flash and would only build websites that were HTML and JavaScript (I HATED JS back than (Maybe it was just me)). I stopped getting business because that norm was slow websites that were pretty and had animations. After Mobile took off in the early 2010's we had faster connections and those Flash sites worked much faster, except for mobile. Now everything is responsive and 2 or 3 seconds feels like a lifetime. AMP changed the internet in my opinion, and maybe it isn't needed any more.

TulliusCicero 9y ago

This is a perfect way of putting it. "You don't need AMP to make websites fast!" And yet, most popular websites sans AMP were/are indeed quite slow.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mimsee 9y ago
And yet, it's a miracle how a few lines of CSS & JS server from a high-speed server makes a website load faster. So, no, we don't need AMP to make webpages faster. To make a website fast (OTTOMH): 1. Optimize the content we deliver, (HTML, CSS, JS, etc...). Minimise the time for all content and First Meaningful Paint. 2. CDN servers. Bring the servers closer to the user, geographically. 3. File compression during transport. Stuff like gzip and HTTP/2.0 (which isn't a compression algo, but inherently makes the pages load faster, which was the objective) Edit(s): Some formatting & content, somewhat new to HN
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  You're missing the point. I recognize that it was quite possible to make fast websites without AMP, but as a consumer, a theoretical solution that few take advantage of is useless to me. AMP got (some) websites to actually be fast, which is a lot more useful than a hypothetical.
pjmlp 9y ago
Only because they are using piles of JavaScript, that could fit several floppies required for Quake, to display static text.
CaptSpify 9y ago
Because Google encourages the giant, slow sites by putting them at the top. Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that Google pushes these sites to the top, then drops in a tool to "fix" the problem?
- 9y ago

tboyd47 9y ago

Except that there was no problem until DoubleClick flooded the internet with intrusive, insecure, distracting CPM-driven ads.

icelancer 9y ago
Uncompressed, unbounded images, and lengthy nonsensical Javascript predates ads by quite some time. I remember those days well enough.
- tboyd47 9y ago
  Was AMP the reason people stopped doing that?
debt 9y ago
Which is owned by Google.
- tboyd47 9y ago
  Exactly. One hand washes the other.

rocqua 9y ago

Why does that solution require google lock-in? The AMP spec is about speed, that doesn't require being served from a google.com domain. If there are speed benefits to caching by google, why make that mandatory?

kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
I specifically said 'deserve' because I don't think it's the ideal solution.