3 ms·
Check out the non-amp versions of those pages though. First example I got (via searching Google for "news" and clicking the first AMP link). AMP: https://www.
by Ajedi32 9y ago
Check out the non-amp versions of those pages though.
First example I got (via searching Google for "news" and clicking the first AMP link).
AMP: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfgate.com/crime/amp/Active-shooter-reported-at-Yountville-veterans-12741622.php https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfgate.com/crime/amp/Active... (2.4 MB, loaded in 760ms)
Non-AMP: https://m.sfgate.com/crime/article/Active-shooter-reported-at-Yountville-veterans-12741622.php https://m.sfgate.com/crime/article/Active-shooter-reported-a... (4.7 MB, loaded in 7 seconds)
The non-AMP page is twice as big and takes an order of magnitude longer to load. So, yes. I would _absolutely_ describe the AMP version as a "slimmed down performant webpage".
Could it be better? Of course! But users are still _much_ better off with AMP than without, at least in terms of performance. (And that's ignoring the fact that preloading is part of AMP. It's not "cheating" if it works in a real-world situation.)
- dmitriid 9y agoMy personal non-AMP page weighs ~800 KB (including all images and JS). It still has no chance in hell competing against a 2.4 MB AMP page because I don't have Google's CDN. Even if I follow all of Google's own performance guidelines, it won't help, as AMP pages load faster than text-only http://motherfuckingwebsite.com http://motherfuckingwebsite.com > It's not "cheating" if it works in a real-world situation. No. It's still cheating. Even if it works
- Ajedi32 9y agoCall it cheating if you want. I as a user still strongly prefer a "cheating" site that loads instantly over a "non-cheating" one that I have to wait 5 seconds to load.