4 ms·
On the one hand, I cry every time the open web loses a bit, and certainly AMP is a loss for the open web. After all Google is essentially trying to make the web
by marcell 9y ago
On the one hand, I cry every time the open web loses a bit, and certainly AMP is a loss for the open web. After all Google is essentially trying to make the web its platform.
But as a user... I love, yes love AMP. All of these complaints about scrolling and Safari chrome and URLs are valid, but guess what: AMP has an awesome feature that the page actually loads!
I know some sites (like Daringfireball) load really nice and fast on mobile, and only have 1 or 2 ads on them, but that's not the state of the web. There are lots of sites with great content, but also 2MB of React Frameworks/Ads/Crap to display a 2KB article. I hit "Reader Mode" as soon as I can on these pages, which is usually after 5-10 seconds of load. Compare this to AMP which load in <1 second. That tradeoff is worth it to me.
- cageface 9y agoYeah this is the problem. I think some of the criticisms of AMP are valid but the sad reality is that sites are never going to clean up their act on their own. AMP dramatically improves web UX for people that might otherwise be inclined to give up and spend all their time in feeds in native apps. Hopefully Google can address some of these concerns without losing the very real end user benefits of AMP as it's implemented now.