3 ms·

It doesn't matter if it's prerendered, as long as it's fast enough, and fast HTML sites are fast enough. If AMP was so good then this entire SSR wouldn't even b

It doesn't matter if it's prerendered, as long as it's fast enough, and fast HTML sites are fast enough. If AMP was so good then this entire SSR wouldn't even be necessary in the first place, let alone all the complaints about user experience and data. You also seem to argue that because Facebook Instant Article and Apple News exist, AMP must also compete. I'm saying none of them are needed and creating yet another standard to push onto publishers because others have done it is poor justification. It's more work for no gain. Google already has vast control over UX by using search results, the very same search results it currently uses to pressure sites to implement AMP. If Google wants to, it can force speed standards that change the majority of websites overnight. It can implement rules and restrictions in its adserver that change the majority of ads overnight. It can optimize Google analytics that change the majority of tracking overnight. It can do all of this if the intentions were pure, but it doesn't, because the only intentions are more control over publishers and data. Facebook doesn't pressure IA and normal links work just fine. Apple News is new inventory and doesn't take away from Safari or the web. And RSS is completely irrelevant and nothing more than a feed of updates where pubs can share as much or as little as they want.

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> It doesn't matter if it's prerendered, as long as it's fast enough, and fast HTML sites are fast enough. If that were true, Bing et al would not spend resources maintaining AMP caches. It's clearly not true. > If AMP was so good then this entire SSR wouldn't even be necessary This just shows that you don't know what AMP does. It allows prerendering from the link aggregator, and it does this well enough that every competent search engine implements it. The problem this solves is that people share AMP links directly, which can't be prerendered because they aren't loaded until someone puts the link in the location bar. In this case, it is slower than plain HTML, but this isn't the case AMP is meant to solve. By using SSR, they can make it faster than most plain HTML and just slightly slower than hand-optimized HTML with above the fold optimizations. > You also seem to argue that because Facebook Instant Article and Apple News exist, AMP must also compete. I'm saying none of them are needed and creating yet another standard to push onto publishers because others have done it is poor justification. The publishers use it, and as we demonstrated above with Bing's A/B testing, the users want it. What more justification do you need? > If Google wants to, it can force speed standards that change the majority of websites overnight. It can implement rules and restrictions in its adserver that change the majority of ads overnight. It can optimize Google analytics that change the majority of tracking overnight. Who says they don't? None of those solve the problem that AMP solves, which is instant loading of pages . > Facebook doesn't pressure IA and normal links work just fine. Apple News is new inventory and doesn't take away from Safari or the web. It's the same with the search engines and AMP. > And RSS is completely irrelevant and nothing more than a feed of updates where pubs can share as much or as little as they want. So what you're saying is that RSS is exactly like AMP, where pubs can share as much or as little as they want.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  > The publishers use it You mean those same publishers who now say that AMP is bullshit, doesn't deliver on any of the original promises and causes problems? https://digiday.com/media/google-amp-beat-facebook-instant-articles-publishers-start-question-amps-benefits/ https://digiday.com/media/google-amp-beat-facebook-instant-a... > as we demonstrated above with Bing's A/B testing, the users want it. Users want faster webpages. Thank you, Captain Obvious.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > Thank you, Captain Obvious. Continuing in the Captain Obvious role, how do you propose to replace FBIA, Apple News, RSS, and AMP with something that both users and publishers love? AMP is just as fast as the first three, and it provides more control to the publishers than the first three, yet you are not ranting about the first three. Why?
- manigandham 7y ago
  Your arguments are circular and repetitive. Publishers do not want AMP. Users dont care about AMP, just fast sites. "Instant" is a marketing gimmick and makes no material difference when sites are fast enough. AMP is not necessary to make sites fast enough. Google can influence site speed through SERP rankings, speed that is lacking primarily because of its other products, but instead it's forcing AMP pages. This is the fundamental problem that you are not acknowledging. There is no way around AMP if you don't want to lose ranking on an existing search results page. FB doesn't treat IA ranking differently from links. RSS doesn't treat content differently. Apple News doesn't even support the web and can already accept RSS feeds. They also get plenty of critique that you're ignoring. Have you ever worked with a publisher?
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    Your arguments are unsupported by evidence. > Users dont care about AMP, just fast sites. Then why does every major search engine support it? They're trying to please their users, so they just need fast, not instant > "Instant" is a marketing gimmick and makes no material difference when sites are fast enough. Instant means actually instant, not just fast. Of course it makes a difference, or the search engines, Apple, and Facebook would not put in the resources to enable it. Your current problem is that you're confusing your hatred for Google's search results ranking with AMP. If you don't like how Google ranks its results, just use a different search engine. Bing ranks differently and also uses AMP.

lern_too_spel 7y ago

> It doesn't matter if it's prerendered, as long as it's fast enough, and fast HTML sites are fast enough. If that were true, Bing et al would not spend resources maintaining AMP caches. It's clearly not true. > If AMP was so good then this entire SSR wouldn't even be necessary This just shows that you don't know what AMP does. It allows prerendering from the link aggregator, and it does this well enough that every competent search engine implements it. The problem this solves is that people share AMP links directly, which can't be prerendered because they aren't loaded until someone puts the link in the location bar. In this case, it is slower than plain HTML, but this isn't the case AMP is meant to solve. By using SSR, they can make it faster than most plain HTML and just slightly slower than hand-optimized HTML with above the fold optimizations. > You also seem to argue that because Facebook Instant Article and Apple News exist, AMP must also compete. I'm saying none of them are needed and creating yet another standard to push onto publishers because others have done it is poor justification. The publishers use it, and as we demonstrated above with Bing's A/B testing, the users want it. What more justification do you need? > If Google wants to, it can force speed standards that change the majority of websites overnight. It can implement rules and restrictions in its adserver that change the majority of ads overnight. It can optimize Google analytics that change the majority of tracking overnight. Who says they don't? None of those solve the problem that AMP solves, which is instant loading of pages . > Facebook doesn't pressure IA and normal links work just fine. Apple News is new inventory and doesn't take away from Safari or the web. It's the same with the search engines and AMP. > And RSS is completely irrelevant and nothing more than a feed of updates where pubs can share as much or as little as they want. So what you're saying is that RSS is exactly like AMP, where pubs can share as much or as little as they want.

dmitriid 7y ago
> The publishers use it You mean those same publishers who now say that AMP is bullshit, doesn't deliver on any of the original promises and causes problems? https://digiday.com/media/google-amp-beat-facebook-instant-articles-publishers-start-question-amps-benefits/ https://digiday.com/media/google-amp-beat-facebook-instant-a... > as we demonstrated above with Bing's A/B testing, the users want it. Users want faster webpages. Thank you, Captain Obvious.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > Thank you, Captain Obvious. Continuing in the Captain Obvious role, how do you propose to replace FBIA, Apple News, RSS, and AMP with something that both users and publishers love? AMP is just as fast as the first three, and it provides more control to the publishers than the first three, yet you are not ranting about the first three. Why?
manigandham 7y ago
Your arguments are circular and repetitive. Publishers do not want AMP. Users dont care about AMP, just fast sites. "Instant" is a marketing gimmick and makes no material difference when sites are fast enough. AMP is not necessary to make sites fast enough. Google can influence site speed through SERP rankings, speed that is lacking primarily because of its other products, but instead it's forcing AMP pages. This is the fundamental problem that you are not acknowledging. There is no way around AMP if you don't want to lose ranking on an existing search results page. FB doesn't treat IA ranking differently from links. RSS doesn't treat content differently. Apple News doesn't even support the web and can already accept RSS feeds. They also get plenty of critique that you're ignoring. Have you ever worked with a publisher?
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  Your arguments are unsupported by evidence. > Users dont care about AMP, just fast sites. Then why does every major search engine support it? They're trying to please their users, so they just need fast, not instant > "Instant" is a marketing gimmick and makes no material difference when sites are fast enough. Instant means actually instant, not just fast. Of course it makes a difference, or the search engines, Apple, and Facebook would not put in the resources to enable it. Your current problem is that you're confusing your hatred for Google's search results ranking with AMP. If you don't like how Google ranks its results, just use a different search engine. Bing ranks differently and also uses AMP.