4 ms·
Worth noting that it would be insane to preload content that didn't pass a strict filter akin to that of AMP. Each Google search would download dozens of MBs a
by vemv 9y ago
Worth noting that it would be insane to preload content that didn't pass a strict filter akin to that of AMP.
Each Google search would download dozens of MBs and produce a significant CPU workload, both resources being precious on mobile.
Perhaps it was a communication issue: AMP should have been named/marketed "preloadable pages" rather than "fast pages".
- niutech 9y agoAMP is not about preloading in the first place. It's about the fast CDN. Let's compare any NYT article in the AMP and standard HTML formats: https://www.webpagetest.org/video/view.php?id=180402_16d708376305a3bcdf0026043845ac4b232d0a17&data=1 https://www.webpagetest.org/video/view.php?id=180402_16d7083... - AMP loads much much faster.
- vemv 9y agoNot sure of what does webpagetest is showing evidence of. It could be anything... for one thing, AMP versions are much leaner so naturally they will load fast - even with no dedicated CDN at all. Cloudflare and Fastly should be more than sufficient CDNs? Admittedly, maybe the AMP CDN is an easier one to set up for the masses, but other than that I bet they all have about the same performance.