3 ms·

The amp version of this page takes my browser 1.39 seconds to load with about 616KB of data over 27 requests. The non-AMP version takes over 10 seconds, and loa

The amp version of this page takes my browser 1.39 seconds to load with about 616KB of data over 27 requests. The non-AMP version takes over 10 seconds, and loads 2.2 MB over 300+ requests. In this case, it's just a light version of the article with the same content. That seems objectively better. If AMP wasn't incidentally in the URL path you wouldn't have noticed it was AMP. If the existence of AMP encourages people to write faster, less cruft-y pages, that's a good thing to me.

cheeze 8y ago
I have zero issue with it, but HN is super outspoken about how AMP is the worst thing on the internet.
- kup0 8y ago
  I understand this thread has really gotten off topic from the original, but I think it's a good discussion nevertheless. I think the criticisms we often hear about AMP tend to be more principle-based/philosophical in nature. Yes, the overall user experience is better. It's not that the experience is bad, it's more about the means they're using to reach those ends. I see AMP as a set of training wheels that Google was able to get publishers to adopt. All the tools were available for publishers and their developers to make performant/clean sites to begin with, they just chose not to do so. AMP is basically a standardized form of "the way they should have built their site in the first place". My other issue with AMP is that it makes companies focus on performance for mobile, but not for desktop. Why not build a quality, high-performance site for all platforms? At the end of the day, is AMP a net positive? Maybe, I'm willing to consider the end result, but I don't think it's a problem for us to explore and criticize the means or the reality that necessitated AMP's existence.
thirdsun 8y ago
> The amp version of this page takes my browser 1.39 seconds to load with about 616KB of data over 27 requests. The non-AMP version takes over 10 seconds, and loads 2.2 MB over 300+ requests. AMP isn't a requirement to build small, fast, performant websites. The fact that The Verge ignores those qualities with their non-AMP website is on them.

cheeze 8y ago

I have zero issue with it, but HN is super outspoken about how AMP is the worst thing on the internet.

kup0 8y ago
I understand this thread has really gotten off topic from the original, but I think it's a good discussion nevertheless. I think the criticisms we often hear about AMP tend to be more principle-based/philosophical in nature. Yes, the overall user experience is better. It's not that the experience is bad, it's more about the means they're using to reach those ends. I see AMP as a set of training wheels that Google was able to get publishers to adopt. All the tools were available for publishers and their developers to make performant/clean sites to begin with, they just chose not to do so. AMP is basically a standardized form of "the way they should have built their site in the first place". My other issue with AMP is that it makes companies focus on performance for mobile, but not for desktop. Why not build a quality, high-performance site for all platforms? At the end of the day, is AMP a net positive? Maybe, I'm willing to consider the end result, but I don't think it's a problem for us to explore and criticize the means or the reality that necessitated AMP's existence.

thirdsun 8y ago

> The amp version of this page takes my browser 1.39 seconds to load with about 616KB of data over 27 requests. The non-AMP version takes over 10 seconds, and loads 2.2 MB over 300+ requests. AMP isn't a requirement to build small, fast, performant websites. The fact that The Verge ignores those qualities with their non-AMP website is on them.