5 ms·

And I was very appreciative of the AMP version being posted. It made for a much better mobile viewing experience than the typical non-AMP experience from Bloomb

by tssva 7y ago

And I was very appreciative of the AMP version being posted. It made for a much better mobile viewing experience than the typical non-AMP experience from Bloomberg.

smt88 7y ago
A forced redesign, in this case motivated by AMP, is what gave you that better mobile experience. It is not something inherent to AMP, and in other ways AMP is incredibly harmful. Most mobile browsers now have "reading mode" anyway.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  The selling point of AMP is that it's a mobile-friendly web component framework. If someone uses AMP for their website, and as a result you get a better mobile experience, it's hard to see how that's not inherent to AMP.
  - MereInterest 7y ago
    I turn on the faucet and fill a glass of water. Taking a drink from the glass, I feel less thirsty. If someone turns on a faucet, and as a result feels less thirsty, then that that thirst-removal must be inherent to turning on a faucet, right? This is obviously silly, but follows the same reasoning that you have stated. Drinking water reduces thirst, not running water from a faucet. Redesigning a website to be less bloated results in a better mobile experience, not designing around AMP. It is possible to redesign a website without using AMP. Causation does not imply necessity.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      I think it's fair to say that thirst-removal is inherent to turning on a faucet. It's true that there are other ways to reduce your thirst, and it's true that turning on the faucet has other effects (such as increasing your water bill) that have nothing to do with how thirsty you are. It's even true that the water company behind your faucet might be doing bad things that it ought to stop. But it doesn't seem helpful to analyze faucets as being a monopolistic plot by Big Water rather than a technology for letting you drink when you're thirsty.
    - notatoad 7y ago
      Thank you for this perfect analogy: access to running water isn't relevant to quenching thirst in the same way that amp isn't relevant to having a usable mobile website. in theory, yes, you're correct. but the reality is that turning on the tap is usually an important step to having a drink of water.
- nikanj 7y ago
  And many websites decide to implement basics like scrolling with js, breaking reading mode.
tyingq 7y ago
In this case, AMP doesn't help much...it's still downloading a ton of crap. 464 requests and 12MB of garbage for an AMP hosted article. https://imgur.com/tPHaHIO https://imgur.com/tPHaHIO
- mrtksn 7y ago
  That's because you are running in a simulator and not doing ad-blocking. Here is the real deal, 1.9MB and took 12 seconds to load completely: https://imgur.com/a/XcsNEsp https://imgur.com/a/XcsNEsp The actual Bloomberg page was 5.3Mbytes and took 30 seconds to load completely: https://imgur.com/a/zBaOzeD https://imgur.com/a/zBaOzeD If 3X improvement in loading time and data transfer is not much of a help, I don't know what it is. USERS like AMP because it is an actual improvement of the UX. The industry complaining over AMP is like the music industry going after the MP3 in the early 2000s.
  - tyingq 7y ago
    12 seconds and 1.9MB isn't anything to brag about either, especially considering you needed an ad-blocker to get there.
    - mrtksn 7y ago
      1.9MB in 12 seconds says about my internet connection but 3X improvement says about AMP. Fight AMP as hard as you like, start a Kickstarter for anti-AMP explaining to the public the evils of AMP but when my search results return an AMP site and non-AMP site I am clicking the AMP. Web tech people can revolt all they want or they can actually find a way to display a few kb of text and image quickly. You can be the music industry trying to protect their CD business or you can own the Napster/iTunes/Spotify and make your money from there. Web publishing becomes garbage, AMP is fast loading garbage. The fast-loading garbage wins.
  - MereInterest 7y ago
    The article itself consists of 20 kB of text. Going from 270x the payload size to 95x the payload size, while impressive, still misses the mark.
bitcurious 7y ago
How so? The non-amp version loaded basically instantly for me.
StuffedParrot 7y ago
If your life was materially impacted by slow mobile speeds you should spend less time on your phone.
nvrspyx 7y ago
Unlike the AMP version, I didn’t have to wait 5+ seconds for the bottom “Signed into Google as ...” banner to disappear to scroll up on the regular site. It made for a worse mobile experience for me.
ignoramous 7y ago
> And I was very appreciative of the AMP version being posted. It made for a much better mobile viewing experience... You should try outline: https://outline.com/XT5ULM https://outline.com/XT5ULM

by tssva 7y ago

And I was very appreciative of the AMP version being posted. It made for a much better mobile viewing experience than the typical non-AMP experience from Bloomberg.

smt88 7y ago

A forced redesign, in this case motivated by AMP, is what gave you that better mobile experience. It is not something inherent to AMP, and in other ways AMP is incredibly harmful. Most mobile browsers now have "reading mode" anyway.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
The selling point of AMP is that it's a mobile-friendly web component framework. If someone uses AMP for their website, and as a result you get a better mobile experience, it's hard to see how that's not inherent to AMP.
- MereInterest 7y ago
  I turn on the faucet and fill a glass of water. Taking a drink from the glass, I feel less thirsty. If someone turns on a faucet, and as a result feels less thirsty, then that that thirst-removal must be inherent to turning on a faucet, right? This is obviously silly, but follows the same reasoning that you have stated. Drinking water reduces thirst, not running water from a faucet. Redesigning a website to be less bloated results in a better mobile experience, not designing around AMP. It is possible to redesign a website without using AMP. Causation does not imply necessity.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I think it's fair to say that thirst-removal is inherent to turning on a faucet. It's true that there are other ways to reduce your thirst, and it's true that turning on the faucet has other effects (such as increasing your water bill) that have nothing to do with how thirsty you are. It's even true that the water company behind your faucet might be doing bad things that it ought to stop. But it doesn't seem helpful to analyze faucets as being a monopolistic plot by Big Water rather than a technology for letting you drink when you're thirsty.
  - notatoad 7y ago
    Thank you for this perfect analogy: access to running water isn't relevant to quenching thirst in the same way that amp isn't relevant to having a usable mobile website. in theory, yes, you're correct. but the reality is that turning on the tap is usually an important step to having a drink of water.
nikanj 7y ago
And many websites decide to implement basics like scrolling with js, breaking reading mode.

tyingq 7y ago

In this case, AMP doesn't help much...it's still downloading a ton of crap. 464 requests and 12MB of garbage for an AMP hosted article. https://imgur.com/tPHaHIO https://imgur.com/tPHaHIO

mrtksn 7y ago
That's because you are running in a simulator and not doing ad-blocking. Here is the real deal, 1.9MB and took 12 seconds to load completely: https://imgur.com/a/XcsNEsp https://imgur.com/a/XcsNEsp The actual Bloomberg page was 5.3Mbytes and took 30 seconds to load completely: https://imgur.com/a/zBaOzeD https://imgur.com/a/zBaOzeD If 3X improvement in loading time and data transfer is not much of a help, I don't know what it is. USERS like AMP because it is an actual improvement of the UX. The industry complaining over AMP is like the music industry going after the MP3 in the early 2000s.
- tyingq 7y ago
  12 seconds and 1.9MB isn't anything to brag about either, especially considering you needed an ad-blocker to get there.
  - mrtksn 7y ago
    1.9MB in 12 seconds says about my internet connection but 3X improvement says about AMP. Fight AMP as hard as you like, start a Kickstarter for anti-AMP explaining to the public the evils of AMP but when my search results return an AMP site and non-AMP site I am clicking the AMP. Web tech people can revolt all they want or they can actually find a way to display a few kb of text and image quickly. You can be the music industry trying to protect their CD business or you can own the Napster/iTunes/Spotify and make your money from there. Web publishing becomes garbage, AMP is fast loading garbage. The fast-loading garbage wins.
- MereInterest 7y ago
  The article itself consists of 20 kB of text. Going from 270x the payload size to 95x the payload size, while impressive, still misses the mark.

bitcurious 7y ago

How so? The non-amp version loaded basically instantly for me.

StuffedParrot 7y ago

If your life was materially impacted by slow mobile speeds you should spend less time on your phone.

nvrspyx 7y ago

Unlike the AMP version, I didn’t have to wait 5+ seconds for the bottom “Signed into Google as ...” banner to disappear to scroll up on the regular site. It made for a worse mobile experience for me.

ignoramous 7y ago

> And I was very appreciative of the AMP version being posted. It made for a much better mobile viewing experience... You should try outline: https://outline.com/XT5ULM https://outline.com/XT5ULM