> If that were true, AMP would be consistently faster. It is. AMP results load instantly for me. > you would find it educational to learn about the issues wit

> If that were true, AMP would be consistently faster. It is. AMP results load instantly for me. > you would find it educational to learn about the issues with detecting user intent, reliably prefetching dependencies, and the relatively small / frequently purged caches on mobile browsers. And you might find it educational to learn why AMP doesn't rely on these things. There are no dependencies that need to be fetched for the initial render. This idea isn't surprising. Multiple other systems use the same ideas, including Apple News, many RSS readers, and Facebook Instant Articles. AMP just does it in a way that isn't anti-competitive (like the former) and allows for multiple monetization schemes and rich formatting (unlike RSS). > if you are using Google search results, they correctly guess what you’re going to tap on before you do and your browser fully preloads it, it _might_ be faster to run all of that JavaScript before anything is allowed to load and render AMP doesn't rely on fully prerendering the page, only the portion above the fold, which it can calculate because the link aggregator page knows the display size, and the elements allowed in AMP are required to report their dimensions. This allows multiple pages to be prerendered. > because it disables standard browser behavior, What standard browser behavior does it disable?