4 ms·
Yeah. But AMP was an initiative for speeding up the web.
by avasthe 6y ago
Yeah. But AMP was an initiative for speeding up the web.
- snowwrestler 6y agoAMP has done nothing for speeding up the web in general; in fact I know web properties that implemented AMP instead of focusing on core speed issues with their main site. It's also notable that AMP projects almost always originate in an SEO strategy, not engineering. Google was on the right track by including side speed as a signal in ranking. From Google's perspective, that became problematic because it started disproportionately punishing sites that run lots of ads... AKA some of Google's most important customers. AMP is a site speed initiative that is more compatible with Google's corporate strategy.
- avasthe 6y agoYes. But AMP wouldn't have had much value if sites were fast enough, Google used that as an excuse or maybe a genuine strategy turned into a lock-in plan. The hipster macbook pro webshit who doesn't know what O(n) means, and the jobsworth drone manager who couldn't see beyond quarterly profits don't have any rights to cry about AMP now. People like AMP pages as evident from many discussions, because they feel faster than the rest of the web.
- fareesh 6y agoIt is trivial to figure out whether a page makes 0 additional network requests and has no script tags and is small.
- toast0 6y agoAlmost every AMP page I went to felt slower than when I went to the real page behind it. I think a significant portion of that was that AMP wants everything rendered in a single paint. As opposed to the typical news site which shows the article for a while, then later hides it when the javascript had time to run. Seeing an article while the page finishes loading feels a lot faster than seeing a white screen until the page finishes loading, even if the content moving around on the first one is annoying.