3 ms·

Amp, for whatever you might feel about it, is the best content loading experience for people with poor internet. Launch up an AVD and set it to use a 3g roaming

Amp, for whatever you might feel about it, is the best content loading experience for people with poor internet. Launch up an AVD and set it to use a 3g roaming profile and try and load up NY Times AMP and non-AMP. I'm not a fan of the implementation personally but something like this needs to exist for developing markets. I didn't know how bad this was until I started working with someone in Brazil and saw he has 2Mbps internet. His internet is faster than some in China and india.

BiteCode_dev 6y ago
Wouldn't the invisible hand of the market solve this? If your site is slow, either the share of good customers plummet and you fix it, and customers you don't want leave and you are happy.
- dynamite-ready 6y ago
  The parent post still makes a fair point. I can't understand why they were down voted, tbh. I more agree with your reply (custom optimisation and consumer choice), but some W3C standard to encourage the creation of highly optimised pages, perhaps an extension to web workers, might be a good idea. As for the problem of the existence of AMP, I don't know how you change that. It might actually be 'to big to fall's now, unfortunately.
- izacus 6y ago
  AMP is the "invisible" hand of the market solving this - a private company taking up an initiative to make internet usable for people who aren't MacBook 5G toting Sillicon Valley hipsters. It's also a perfect example why "invisible hand of market" can be an absolutely terrible and abusive way of trying to fix infrastructure for people who aren't privileged rich people.
throwaway189262 6y ago
All Google has to do is de-rank slow sites and everything would be fast within weeks. But they won't. Because ad tech is most of what's making sites slow. They would end up de-ranking sites using lots of Google advertising. Speed is just a shitty excuse to force AMP on everyone. There's countless other levers they could pull if they actually cared about performance
musicale 6y ago
> use a 3g roaming profile and try and load up NY Times AMP and non-AMP 2Mbps internet should be more than adequate for loading an article's text and an accompanying image via basic HTML. Unfortunately....the first thing that slows sites down is loading 6 MB of garbage (junk from dozens of domains, ad networks, tracking, "analytics", who knows what else?) to view a few paragraphs of text and a single image. Then there are the sites with usually unrelated, irritating auto-playing videos that basically nobody wants but you can't turn off even if you've "disabled" autoplay in the browser... Why did we decide to adopt these worst practices? Maybe we decided at some point that the commercial web was a bad idea and should be made as unusable as possible to discourage its use.

BiteCode_dev 6y ago

Wouldn't the invisible hand of the market solve this? If your site is slow, either the share of good customers plummet and you fix it, and customers you don't want leave and you are happy.

dynamite-ready 6y ago
The parent post still makes a fair point. I can't understand why they were down voted, tbh. I more agree with your reply (custom optimisation and consumer choice), but some W3C standard to encourage the creation of highly optimised pages, perhaps an extension to web workers, might be a good idea. As for the problem of the existence of AMP, I don't know how you change that. It might actually be 'to big to fall's now, unfortunately.
izacus 6y ago
AMP is the "invisible" hand of the market solving this - a private company taking up an initiative to make internet usable for people who aren't MacBook 5G toting Sillicon Valley hipsters. It's also a perfect example why "invisible hand of market" can be an absolutely terrible and abusive way of trying to fix infrastructure for people who aren't privileged rich people.

throwaway189262 6y ago

All Google has to do is de-rank slow sites and everything would be fast within weeks. But they won't. Because ad tech is most of what's making sites slow. They would end up de-ranking sites using lots of Google advertising. Speed is just a shitty excuse to force AMP on everyone. There's countless other levers they could pull if they actually cared about performance

musicale 6y ago

> use a 3g roaming profile and try and load up NY Times AMP and non-AMP 2Mbps internet should be more than adequate for loading an article's text and an accompanying image via basic HTML. Unfortunately....the first thing that slows sites down is loading 6 MB of garbage (junk from dozens of domains, ad networks, tracking, "analytics", who knows what else?) to view a few paragraphs of text and a single image. Then there are the sites with usually unrelated, irritating auto-playing videos that basically nobody wants but you can't turn off even if you've "disabled" autoplay in the browser... Why did we decide to adopt these worst practices? Maybe we decided at some point that the commercial web was a bad idea and should be made as unusable as possible to discourage its use.