3 ms·

I hate AMP as a user. It breaks iOS Safari reader mode, and i always have to do extra work to get the actual link to the page. I'm also on LTE, so there's not r

I hate AMP as a user. It breaks iOS Safari reader mode, and i always have to do extra work to get the actual link to the page. I'm also on LTE, so there's not really any noticeable speed difference on mobile. Initially there were also rendering bugs making 50% of amp clicks result in blank pages for me.

vorpalhex 8y ago
It's not delivery speed that I care about, it's "time to first paint". I want to read the damned news article, not wait for your crappy fonts to load and have to mute your autoplaying video nonsense.
- chrischen 8y ago
  CSS fonts are still supported by AMP, so it wouldn't get rid of it.
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    AMP does some things to allow CSS fonts without letting them get out of scope and go insane.
baxtr 8y ago
Exactly the same for me. It starts wir subtle things: Why do they have to override the system scroll speed? Then, as you point out, I’m a heavy user of safaris read mode which is essentially solving for the same problem as AMP. For me, the best thing about amp is the link leading to the non amp version EDIT: I have to apologize for both of my points. The scrolling thing was fixed as somebody pointed out and the reading mode works just fine for most pages I just checked. Have tried to avoid AMP for a long time I guess...
- sincerely 8y ago
  I heavily use my browsers' reader modes as well but isn't the idea that if you load the regular page then use the reader mode you end up downloading more data than you would have if you just visited an AMP page? From a user's perspective (absent ideological concerns about the implications of AMP in its current implementation) the latter is preferable to me.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  The scroll speed issue has been fixed on later versions of iOS.