9 ms·

Of course AMP has other motives than simply making the web faster for mobile, but it also does make the web faster for mobile. I guarantee the AMP version of t

Of course AMP has other motives than simply making the web faster for mobile, but it also does make the web faster for mobile. I guarantee the AMP version of that paper's mobile website provided a significantly better user experience than the normal version. That is why AMP has been successful, and it's why I will continue to click on AMP links whenever available. Is giving Google that much control ideal? Of course not, but from a user perspective it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

stephenr 7y ago
Install a content blocker, and the original site sans bullshit is the best experience. Ironically the amp page is artificially slow when blocking amp’s JS because they force an 8 second delay - via required boilerplate css - before content is visible.
- wizzwizz4 7y ago
  Source for your second paragraph: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16730905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16730905 That's out of date now, though; despite still being part of the required boilerplate CSS for AMP pages, I can't find that delay in any of the https://amp.dev/ https://amp.dev/ pages (the ampbyexample.com replacement demo site). This is really shady.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    It's a little more complex than that: If you disable all js, there is no delay. If you specifically block amp js, there is a delay. There could certainly be a shady reason for this, but the justification makes sense: one of the goals of AMP is to have, basically, a single, correct, initial paint. That's why images are statically sized and amp sticks placeholders there until the real images load. The js delay exists to allow the site to fetch the js and use it to correctly render the initial paint, even on a slow/flaky connection where the js takes a bit to fetch.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - stephenr 7y ago
      The delay is css based not js based, so why would blocking all js affect it?
      - wolfgang42 7y ago
        If you tell the browser to disable execution of all <script> tags, it will instead evaluate the <noscript> tag which contains some additional CSS that disables the animation.
        stephenr 7y ago
        Ah, I didn't realise/remember it has a noscript block, it's been a while since I dug into the issue originally.
  - gregable 7y ago
    Sites which optimize their pages via https://www.npmjs.com/package/@ampproject/toolbox-optimizer https://www.npmjs.com/package/@ampproject/toolbox-optimizer have the initial layout performed server-side instead of by javascript, and thus the CSS Flash-of-unstyled-content protection is removed. amp.dev runs this optimization, along with lots of other sites.
- gregable 7y ago
  You misunderstand the 8 second CSS animation in the AMP boilerplate. Here's the code (simplified): <style> body { animation:-amp-start 8s steps(1,end) 0s 1 normal both} @keyframes -amp-start{from{visibility:hidden}to{visibility:visible}} </style> <noscript> <style amp-boilerplate> body{animation:none} </style> </noscript> See the noscript section: if javascript is disabled, the CSS displays the body immediately. If Javascript is enabled, but for some reason the AMP javascript fails to load, after 8 seconds, the page is displayed anyway. When the AMP Javascript loads (a single js file, one request, typically already in the users cache), the javascript displays the page immediately. The page is probably somewhat broken without the javascript loading, but the 8s is a fallback, not code to slow down non-javascript browsers. The only two cases where the 8s is relevant are: the network connection is so bad that the javascript file fails to load within 8s and the useragent has explicitly blocked the one javascript file on the page, without blocking javascript overall.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    This will hit a lot of people on the web today that have given up on a blanket block on JS (because a lot of pure text content simply fails to render without JS, yaaaaay) but do have a blanket blacklist on JS assets and whitelist requests on a need basis.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      As intended. We desperately need some anticompetitive scrutiny on google. Unfortunately... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000067823 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000067823
  - JoshMnem 7y ago
    The 8-second delay is there to punish users who block JavaScript that is loaded from Google's servers (with ad-blockers) but still have JavaScript enabled.
    - esrauch 7y ago
buboard 7y ago
> it also does make the web faster this is true > That is why AMP has been successful This is not. If google removes ranking incentive, people will forget about AMP the next day
- thereisnospork 7y ago
  >> That is why AMP has been successful >This is not. If google removes ranking incentive, people will forget about AMP the next day Google giving ranking incentive to sites that are faster seems like the exact sort of thing they should be doing.
  - hk__2 7y ago
    > Google giving ranking incentive to sites that are faster seems like the exact sort of thing they should be doing. Yes. It should give ranking incentive based on actual speed, not AMP support.
  - snowwrestler 7y ago
    Google already incorporates site speed into their rankings, separate from AMP. However, if you want to get into Google's mobile carousel above the normal search results, you have to serve AMP pages and let Google cache them.
  - progval 7y ago
    Except that it's now giving a huge boost to websites that use a specific technology to be fast; instead of just boosting all fast websites like it used to. Sites can be fast even if they don't use AMP.
    - girvo 7y ago
      Heck, sites can be faster if they don't use AMP. Sure, most sites aren't, but it's certainly doable. AMP, aside from Google caching your site on the SRP, doesn't really do anything crazy when it comes to site performance.
  - Udik 7y ago
basq 7y ago
Does it really make the web faster for mobile? I've had the exact opposite experience with it. It's made sites run much slower, broken things like dark themes, and make advertisements more intrusive. For example, I used to think the game guide/news site polygon was a horrible slow mess until I learned about amp, I was accessing it via google search, and once I excised the amp portion of the url the site became snappy and usable. The same exact thing happened to me two nights ago with SoundOnSound as well.
littlestymaar 7y ago
> but it also does make the web faster for mobile. AMP probably help making some previously bad-written amd bloated websites less slow, but it doesn't make them fast either. HN is a fast website. The old reddit was a reasonably fast website. The new reddit (with AMP) is slower on my phone than the old one. It's still faster than the worst websites I browse on mobile, but it's far from being the fastest, and it's one of the slowest I actually use on my phone (simply because I usually don't browse websites that are too slow). AMP isn't about speed.
dbtx 7y ago
> a lot better than the alternative There are more alternatives. IIRC the goal in 56k days was to make the page load inside 10 seconds. People managed.
- dbtx 7y ago
  It was probably 5 seconds, to maximize conversion. Thankfully, I haven't had to think about it for 10+ years.
hw 7y ago
HTTP/2, HTTP/3, 5G, faster mobile phones, will all make AMP inconsequential and unnecessary, unless your primary audience lives in rural areas or are not able to adopt such technologies. Applications used to fit on a floppy disk. Websites used to be a few K in size. AMP might be successful (if it's even considered successful), but only for a short while. I avoid AMP links when I can, since I don't want the jank, stripped down experience of a site. If I really want a great experience on publishing sites, I just turn on Reader Mode. And of course, it's preposterous that Google gives preferences to AMP pages on search rankings. It's just as if Amazon prioritizes its own products in its search rankings (not saying it does or doesn't).

stephenr 7y ago

Install a content blocker, and the original site sans bullshit is the best experience. Ironically the amp page is artificially slow when blocking amp’s JS because they force an 8 second delay - via required boilerplate css - before content is visible.

wizzwizz4 7y ago
Source for your second paragraph: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16730905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16730905 That's out of date now, though; despite still being part of the required boilerplate CSS for AMP pages, I can't find that delay in any of the https://amp.dev/ https://amp.dev/ pages (the ampbyexample.com replacement demo site). This is really shady.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  It's a little more complex than that: If you disable all js, there is no delay. If you specifically block amp js, there is a delay. There could certainly be a shady reason for this, but the justification makes sense: one of the goals of AMP is to have, basically, a single, correct, initial paint. That's why images are statically sized and amp sticks placeholders there until the real images load. The js delay exists to allow the site to fetch the js and use it to correctly render the initial paint, even on a slow/flaky connection where the js takes a bit to fetch.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - stephenr 7y ago
    The delay is css based not js based, so why would blocking all js affect it?
    - wolfgang42 7y ago
      If you tell the browser to disable execution of all <script> tags, it will instead evaluate the <noscript> tag which contains some additional CSS that disables the animation.
      - stephenr 7y ago
        Ah, I didn't realise/remember it has a noscript block, it's been a while since I dug into the issue originally.
- gregable 7y ago
  Sites which optimize their pages via https://www.npmjs.com/package/@ampproject/toolbox-optimizer https://www.npmjs.com/package/@ampproject/toolbox-optimizer have the initial layout performed server-side instead of by javascript, and thus the CSS Flash-of-unstyled-content protection is removed. amp.dev runs this optimization, along with lots of other sites.
gregable 7y ago
You misunderstand the 8 second CSS animation in the AMP boilerplate. Here's the code (simplified): <style> body { animation:-amp-start 8s steps(1,end) 0s 1 normal both} @keyframes -amp-start{from{visibility:hidden}to{visibility:visible}} </style> <noscript> <style amp-boilerplate> body{animation:none} </style> </noscript> See the noscript section: if javascript is disabled, the CSS displays the body immediately. If Javascript is enabled, but for some reason the AMP javascript fails to load, after 8 seconds, the page is displayed anyway. When the AMP Javascript loads (a single js file, one request, typically already in the users cache), the javascript displays the page immediately. The page is probably somewhat broken without the javascript loading, but the 8s is a fallback, not code to slow down non-javascript browsers. The only two cases where the 8s is relevant are: the network connection is so bad that the javascript file fails to load within 8s and the useragent has explicitly blocked the one javascript file on the page, without blocking javascript overall.
- munk-a 7y ago
  This will hit a lot of people on the web today that have given up on a blanket block on JS (because a lot of pure text content simply fails to render without JS, yaaaaay) but do have a blanket blacklist on JS assets and whitelist requests on a need basis.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    As intended. We desperately need some anticompetitive scrutiny on google. Unfortunately... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000067823 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000067823
- JoshMnem 7y ago
  The 8-second delay is there to punish users who block JavaScript that is loaded from Google's servers (with ad-blockers) but still have JavaScript enabled.
  - esrauch 7y ago

buboard 7y ago

> it also does make the web faster this is true > That is why AMP has been successful This is not. If google removes ranking incentive, people will forget about AMP the next day

thereisnospork 7y ago
>> That is why AMP has been successful >This is not. If google removes ranking incentive, people will forget about AMP the next day Google giving ranking incentive to sites that are faster seems like the exact sort of thing they should be doing.
- hk__2 7y ago
  > Google giving ranking incentive to sites that are faster seems like the exact sort of thing they should be doing. Yes. It should give ranking incentive based on actual speed, not AMP support.
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  Google already incorporates site speed into their rankings, separate from AMP. However, if you want to get into Google's mobile carousel above the normal search results, you have to serve AMP pages and let Google cache them.
- progval 7y ago
  Except that it's now giving a huge boost to websites that use a specific technology to be fast; instead of just boosting all fast websites like it used to. Sites can be fast even if they don't use AMP.
  - girvo 7y ago
    Heck, sites can be faster if they don't use AMP. Sure, most sites aren't, but it's certainly doable. AMP, aside from Google caching your site on the SRP, doesn't really do anything crazy when it comes to site performance.
- Udik 7y ago

basq 7y ago

Does it really make the web faster for mobile? I've had the exact opposite experience with it. It's made sites run much slower, broken things like dark themes, and make advertisements more intrusive. For example, I used to think the game guide/news site polygon was a horrible slow mess until I learned about amp, I was accessing it via google search, and once I excised the amp portion of the url the site became snappy and usable. The same exact thing happened to me two nights ago with SoundOnSound as well.

littlestymaar 7y ago

> but it also does make the web faster for mobile. AMP probably help making some previously bad-written amd bloated websites less slow, but it doesn't make them fast either. HN is a fast website. The old reddit was a reasonably fast website. The new reddit (with AMP) is slower on my phone than the old one. It's still faster than the worst websites I browse on mobile, but it's far from being the fastest, and it's one of the slowest I actually use on my phone (simply because I usually don't browse websites that are too slow). AMP isn't about speed.

dbtx 7y ago

> a lot better than the alternative There are more alternatives. IIRC the goal in 56k days was to make the page load inside 10 seconds. People managed.

dbtx 7y ago
It was probably 5 seconds, to maximize conversion. Thankfully, I haven't had to think about it for 10+ years.

hw 7y ago

HTTP/2, HTTP/3, 5G, faster mobile phones, will all make AMP inconsequential and unnecessary, unless your primary audience lives in rural areas or are not able to adopt such technologies. Applications used to fit on a floppy disk. Websites used to be a few K in size. AMP might be successful (if it's even considered successful), but only for a short while. I avoid AMP links when I can, since I don't want the jank, stripped down experience of a site. If I really want a great experience on publishing sites, I just turn on Reader Mode. And of course, it's preposterous that Google gives preferences to AMP pages on search rankings. It's just as if Amazon prioritizes its own products in its search rankings (not saying it does or doesn't).