4 ms·

> hat seems like a gross mischaracterization of the article. I mean the article itself says that the other improvement are much less significant than the overa

> hat seems like a gross mischaracterization of the article. I mean the article itself says that the other improvement are much less significant than the overall 2.5 speedup of the amphtml page. Whether the user will have to do 1-2 more seconds is immaterial , when you have typical newspaper websites that take 10-30 seconds to load.And you don't implicate google's caches (which will at some point refuse to render you if your page is against their politics) in any step. Regardless, i believe amp will fail equally to how html pages fail now: newspaper marketers will keep adding more and more stuff to their amphtml webpages (and amp makes it easier to add extra components), and no matter how fast it loads, they will become heavy as hell and your phone will again start to smoke. We just dont see that yet because it's early days - but newspaper sites were also bare html 20 years ago. AMP is an evil bandaid with significant sideeffects

spankalee 7y ago
> which will at some point refuse to render you if your page is against their politics Say what now? Citation needed.
- buboard 7y ago
  didnt they censor a bunch of nutrition sites today? i cant bring u a citation from the future. it's speculation
jsnell 7y ago
There's a 2.5x improvement from serving AMP rather than HTML. There's also a 2.5x improvement from prefetching. The part that the article dismisses is the change from just the AMP cache but without prefetching. I think there's a pretty big difference between a few seconds and instant. Maybe you think the difference doesn't matter to the UX, and there's at least a discussion. But just going lalala and denying that the difference exists?
- gregable 7y ago
  It's also worth noting that the cache is necessary for prefetching. Without the cache, the prefetch would leak user's query intent to an origin that the user has yet to decide to visit. This would violate the user's privacy, therefore a cache is necessary to achieve prefetch.

spankalee 7y ago

> which will at some point refuse to render you if your page is against their politics Say what now? Citation needed.

buboard 7y ago
didnt they censor a bunch of nutrition sites today? i cant bring u a citation from the future. it's speculation

jsnell 7y ago

There's a 2.5x improvement from serving AMP rather than HTML. There's also a 2.5x improvement from prefetching. The part that the article dismisses is the change from just the AMP cache but without prefetching. I think there's a pretty big difference between a few seconds and instant. Maybe you think the difference doesn't matter to the UX, and there's at least a discussion. But just going lalala and denying that the difference exists?

gregable 7y ago
It's also worth noting that the cache is necessary for prefetching. Without the cache, the prefetch would leak user's query intent to an origin that the user has yet to decide to visit. This would violate the user's privacy, therefore a cache is necessary to achieve prefetch.