4 ms·

You're missing the entire point. It is fine to have a framework like AMP that puts up technical constraints leading to a performance-friendly web page. The pro

You're missing the entire point. It is fine to have a framework like AMP that puts up technical constraints leading to a performance-friendly web page. The problem is the cache and specifically the preloading of it. This gives AMP an unfair advantage of multiple seconds over anything else.

cromwellian 9y ago
That's why Redfin (https://redfin.engineering/how-to-fix-googles-amp-without-slowing-it-down-522bc5e1e11d https://redfin.engineering/how-to-fix-googles-amp-without-sl...) pointed out that the Web Packaging spec could fix this. But before you have a general purpose spec that fixes something, you need a specific embodiment that does. asmjs came before WASM. SPDY came before HTTP/2. Flash came before HTML5. I didn't like Flash, but would you have suggested Adobe worked with browser vendors for years to bring the Web up the capabilities needed and never having shipped Flash? Still, even without the AMP-cache, mobile sites were loading way too much JS, even after Google penalized them. The effect of AMP showing how sites could be loaded as fast as native Apple News/Facebook Instant, has finally gotten publishers to strip down their sites. You might not like the way it played out, but the end result is that not only do end users get AMP-cached fast loading, but they also end up download far less data, because the sites themselves have been pared down.
- fchristant 9y ago
  The main objection I have to AMP is preloading, it is a demonstratable case of an unfair level playing field, that cannot be excused by any technical reason. On slow 3G, where performance matters most, it gives an advantage of several seconds. Because of preloading, not because of AMP in itself. This makes the whole "the web is slow" discussion irrelevant. If I would now build the fastest website in the world, it would not be preloaded, and would STILL be slower than AMP. It's a skewed playing field in which you cannot compete, whether you strip down your site or not.
- dmitriid 9y ago
  > Web Packaging spec could fix this It won't fix this. The only thing it will do, it will let browsers show the original link, not the AMP link, and fix the UI. The problems described in the article will not go away. > But before you have a general purpose spec that fixes something, you need a specific embodiment that does AMP isn't that spec though. It does nothing special. And the only reason it's fast is because Google aggressively preloads it. > but the end result is that not only do end users get AMP-cached fast loading, but they also end up download far less data, Are they though? When for every search google preloads tens of AMP sites to make them "fast"?
  - cromwellian 9y ago
    > It won't fix this. The only thing it will do, it will let browsers show the original link, not the AMP link, and fix the UI. The problems described in the article will not go away. No, it does more that, it does away with the need to use iframes which break scrolling, and it allows all sites to use preloading without violating privacy see https://redfin.engineering/how-to-fix-googles-amp-without-slowing-it-down-522bc5e1e11d https://redfin.engineering/how-to-fix-googles-amp-without-sl... "If other browsers accepted the Web Packaging standard, the web might look rather different in the future, since basically any site that links to a lot of external sites (Reddit? Twitter? Facebook?) could start linking to prerendered Web Packages, rather the original site. Those sites would appear to just load faster. Web-Packaged pages could one day eliminate the Reddit “hug of death,” where Reddit’s overenthusiastic visitors overwhelm sites hosting original content. Despite cries that Google is trying to subvert the open web, the result could be a more open web, a web open to copying, sharing, and archiving web sites." >Are they though? When for every search google preloads tens of AMP sites to make them "fast"? TheVerge.com non-AMP loads 3MB of data, 289 HTTP requests, executes 1.5Mb of JS. Going to Google.com and searching for Verge stories produces 10 carosel Verge stories, and according to Chrome DevTools, only 377kb was loaded, though this seems oddly wrong, I doubt prefetching AMP stories will exceed the shitty bloat of non-AMP pages. WashingtonPost non-AMP homepage is 6MB+ NYT non-AMP is 4MB+ WSJ non-AMP is 5.7MB And by non-AMP, I mean "mobile web version" The desktop versions are even larger. Can you see the problem?
    - 9y ago

cromwellian 9y ago

That's why Redfin (https://redfin.engineering/how-to-fix-googles-amp-without-slowing-it-down-522bc5e1e11d https://redfin.engineering/how-to-fix-googles-amp-without-sl...) pointed out that the Web Packaging spec could fix this. But before you have a general purpose spec that fixes something, you need a specific embodiment that does. asmjs came before WASM. SPDY came before HTTP/2. Flash came before HTML5. I didn't like Flash, but would you have suggested Adobe worked with browser vendors for years to bring the Web up the capabilities needed and never having shipped Flash? Still, even without the AMP-cache, mobile sites were loading way too much JS, even after Google penalized them. The effect of AMP showing how sites could be loaded as fast as native Apple News/Facebook Instant, has finally gotten publishers to strip down their sites. You might not like the way it played out, but the end result is that not only do end users get AMP-cached fast loading, but they also end up download far less data, because the sites themselves have been pared down.

fchristant 9y ago
The main objection I have to AMP is preloading, it is a demonstratable case of an unfair level playing field, that cannot be excused by any technical reason. On slow 3G, where performance matters most, it gives an advantage of several seconds. Because of preloading, not because of AMP in itself. This makes the whole "the web is slow" discussion irrelevant. If I would now build the fastest website in the world, it would not be preloaded, and would STILL be slower than AMP. It's a skewed playing field in which you cannot compete, whether you strip down your site or not.
dmitriid 9y ago
> Web Packaging spec could fix this It won't fix this. The only thing it will do, it will let browsers show the original link, not the AMP link, and fix the UI. The problems described in the article will not go away. > But before you have a general purpose spec that fixes something, you need a specific embodiment that does AMP isn't that spec though. It does nothing special. And the only reason it's fast is because Google aggressively preloads it. > but the end result is that not only do end users get AMP-cached fast loading, but they also end up download far less data, Are they though? When for every search google preloads tens of AMP sites to make them "fast"?
- cromwellian 9y ago
  > It won't fix this. The only thing it will do, it will let browsers show the original link, not the AMP link, and fix the UI. The problems described in the article will not go away. No, it does more that, it does away with the need to use iframes which break scrolling, and it allows all sites to use preloading without violating privacy see https://redfin.engineering/how-to-fix-googles-amp-without-slowing-it-down-522bc5e1e11d https://redfin.engineering/how-to-fix-googles-amp-without-sl... "If other browsers accepted the Web Packaging standard, the web might look rather different in the future, since basically any site that links to a lot of external sites (Reddit? Twitter? Facebook?) could start linking to prerendered Web Packages, rather the original site. Those sites would appear to just load faster. Web-Packaged pages could one day eliminate the Reddit “hug of death,” where Reddit’s overenthusiastic visitors overwhelm sites hosting original content. Despite cries that Google is trying to subvert the open web, the result could be a more open web, a web open to copying, sharing, and archiving web sites." >Are they though? When for every search google preloads tens of AMP sites to make them "fast"? TheVerge.com non-AMP loads 3MB of data, 289 HTTP requests, executes 1.5Mb of JS. Going to Google.com and searching for Verge stories produces 10 carosel Verge stories, and according to Chrome DevTools, only 377kb was loaded, though this seems oddly wrong, I doubt prefetching AMP stories will exceed the shitty bloat of non-AMP pages. WashingtonPost non-AMP homepage is 6MB+ NYT non-AMP is 4MB+ WSJ non-AMP is 5.7MB And by non-AMP, I mean "mobile web version" The desktop versions are even larger. Can you see the problem?
  - 9y ago