6 ms·

But that's the point. AMP makes preloading feasible by making it safe.

by boromisp 7y ago

manigandham 7y ago
Any HTML page can be preloaded. It's even built into modern browsers.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  Google's entire reason for not using the browser preload function is is violates the users privacy - the site gets to know the users cookies and IP even if they never end up visiting. It's a legit excuse, but not enough if a privacy leak in my opinion to slow down everyone's browsing substantially.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  Indeed. Facebook does this. It deanonymizes Facebook news feed visitors to every third party whose links appear on their news feed. You consider this a better approach? In addition to losing in privacy, it loses in speed because it doesn't prerender the page, and it doesn't know enough to load just the resources needed to render above the fold.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    I don't consider either necessary. Clicking a link and then loading the page works just fine for the web. Creating a custom HTML fork that puts more pressure on limited publisher dev teams to end up with another copy o the site (and now SSR) is a worse approach than placing loading speed into search results ranking and letting sites optimize the site for everyone with a browser.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > Clicking a link and then loading the page works just fine for the web. No, it doesn't. If it did, there would be no need for Facebook Instant Articles, Apple News, or their successor, AMP. > Creating a custom HTML fork that puts more pressure on limited publisher dev teams to end up with another copy o the site They're already doing this with Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News. Imagine if they had to do separate integrations with Bing, Google, Yahoo! Japan, Baidu, and any future link aggregators. AMP lets them publish one page and support all of them.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        No, none of this is needed. Make speed a factor in search results and sites get faster. The single HTML version will get faster for everyone on every device, not just mobile sites from certain platforms. Facebook IA and Apple News are also attempts to control ads and data, just like AMP. They're all bad for publishers. IA and AN have both failed in providing anywhere near the benefits and revenue they promised. AMP only survives because it's compatible with existing ads served by Google's ad network and given higher placement in their search results. It's rather amazing how Google is specifically offering the solution to a problem caused by their own adtech software.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > No, none of this is needed. Make speed a factor in search results and sites get faster. You can't get faster than prerendered, which is what Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles offer, which AMP is the open alternative to. > AMP only survives because it's compatible with existing ads served by Google's ad network and given higher placement in their search results. If that's the case, why does Bing use it? > It's rather amazing how Google is specifically offering the solution to a problem caused by their own adtech software. What's rather amazing is that after having repeatedly heard the problem that AMP solves (instant loading pages), you continue to straw man what it solves and what technologies it competes with. > Facebook IA and Apple News are also attempts to control ads and data, just like AMP. They're all bad for publishers. Yet only AMP gets the rabid hate. Why is that? AMP is essentially RSS items with support for above the fold prerendering, interactivity, and monetization. You probably love RSS, even though it is even worse for publishers. Why?
        dmitriid 7y ago
        > which AMP is the open alternative to. It's not an open alternative. All decisions on what AMP should look like and what it supports are done by Google behind closed doors. See, for example, AMP 4 Email [1] The only reason AMP exists is because Google needed its own way to control content. That is it. > If that's the case, why does Bing use it? Because you're forced to compete against the behemoth on the behemoth's terms. > What's rather amazing is that after having repeatedly heard the problem that AMP solves (instant loading pages) AMP's problems are well documented. You chose to ignore all of them and go for "instant loading pages". > Yet only AMP gets the rabid hate. Why is that? Because it reaches a wider audience and Google has the gall to call it "open" and "good for the web". It's neither. > AMP is essentially RSS items It is not like RSS in any way, shape, or form. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16455593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16455593

But that's the point. AMP makes preloading feasible by making it safe.

manigandham 7y ago

Any HTML page can be preloaded. It's even built into modern browsers.

londons_explore 7y ago
Google's entire reason for not using the browser preload function is is violates the users privacy - the site gets to know the users cookies and IP even if they never end up visiting. It's a legit excuse, but not enough if a privacy leak in my opinion to slow down everyone's browsing substantially.
lern_too_spel 7y ago
Indeed. Facebook does this. It deanonymizes Facebook news feed visitors to every third party whose links appear on their news feed. You consider this a better approach? In addition to losing in privacy, it loses in speed because it doesn't prerender the page, and it doesn't know enough to load just the resources needed to render above the fold.
- manigandham 7y ago
  I don't consider either necessary. Clicking a link and then loading the page works just fine for the web. Creating a custom HTML fork that puts more pressure on limited publisher dev teams to end up with another copy o the site (and now SSR) is a worse approach than placing loading speed into search results ranking and letting sites optimize the site for everyone with a browser.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > Clicking a link and then loading the page works just fine for the web. No, it doesn't. If it did, there would be no need for Facebook Instant Articles, Apple News, or their successor, AMP. > Creating a custom HTML fork that puts more pressure on limited publisher dev teams to end up with another copy o the site They're already doing this with Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News. Imagine if they had to do separate integrations with Bing, Google, Yahoo! Japan, Baidu, and any future link aggregators. AMP lets them publish one page and support all of them.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      No, none of this is needed. Make speed a factor in search results and sites get faster. The single HTML version will get faster for everyone on every device, not just mobile sites from certain platforms. Facebook IA and Apple News are also attempts to control ads and data, just like AMP. They're all bad for publishers. IA and AN have both failed in providing anywhere near the benefits and revenue they promised. AMP only survives because it's compatible with existing ads served by Google's ad network and given higher placement in their search results. It's rather amazing how Google is specifically offering the solution to a problem caused by their own adtech software.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        > No, none of this is needed. Make speed a factor in search results and sites get faster. You can't get faster than prerendered, which is what Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles offer, which AMP is the open alternative to. > AMP only survives because it's compatible with existing ads served by Google's ad network and given higher placement in their search results. If that's the case, why does Bing use it? > It's rather amazing how Google is specifically offering the solution to a problem caused by their own adtech software. What's rather amazing is that after having repeatedly heard the problem that AMP solves (instant loading pages), you continue to straw man what it solves and what technologies it competes with. > Facebook IA and Apple News are also attempts to control ads and data, just like AMP. They're all bad for publishers. Yet only AMP gets the rabid hate. Why is that? AMP is essentially RSS items with support for above the fold prerendering, interactivity, and monetization. You probably love RSS, even though it is even worse for publishers. Why?
        dmitriid 7y ago
        > which AMP is the open alternative to. It's not an open alternative. All decisions on what AMP should look like and what it supports are done by Google behind closed doors. See, for example, AMP 4 Email [1] The only reason AMP exists is because Google needed its own way to control content. That is it. > If that's the case, why does Bing use it? Because you're forced to compete against the behemoth on the behemoth's terms. > What's rather amazing is that after having repeatedly heard the problem that AMP solves (instant loading pages) AMP's problems are well documented. You chose to ignore all of them and go for "instant loading pages". > Yet only AMP gets the rabid hate. Why is that? Because it reaches a wider audience and Google has the gall to call it "open" and "good for the web". It's neither. > AMP is essentially RSS items It is not like RSS in any way, shape, or form. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16455593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16455593