3 ms·

> Most of the times, the AMP site is faster Except AMP sites usually aren't faster. They just get preloaded[0]. If google preloaded non-AMP sites (which is tec

> Most of the times, the AMP site is faster Except AMP sites usually aren't faster. They just get preloaded[0]. If google preloaded non-AMP sites (which is technically feasible, there has been browser extensions doing this since ages ago), they too would load "faster", fancy that! There's no good part to AMP. It's bullshit that doesn't really work. Sure in absolute metrics, your website might be "faster" simply by following AMP's rule, but it'll still usually be way too slow without google's cheats. You know what works to make websites load faster? Not including megabytes of javascript, properly configuring your server to compress the data, keeping images at a reasonable resolution, and preferably under the fold. The only thing AMP was ever good for is give Google a convenient excuse to seize control of content distribution, giving them even more insight on users' browsing habits and whatnot. And golly did it work. [0]: https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424031047 https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424...

miohtama 6y ago
It is cheaper just to use AMP than hiring a senior web developer to fix a website stuffed with crap.
joshuamorton 6y ago
> Except AMP sites usually aren't faster. They just get preloaded[0]. If google preloaded non-AMP sites (which is technically feasible, there has been browser extensions doing this since ages ago), they too would load "faster", fancy that! This is not feasible in a security conscious way. Preloading leaks metadata (at a minimum things like IP address, and probably much more for a useful implementation) to third party hosts without any user interaction. Even without preloading, as I understand it, amp is still faster than your "average" site since it enforces decent performance hygiene. Yes, performance conscious owners can create slightly faster sites, but most don't. The 0.0s load times for preloaded sites and potential to cache is just butter for an end user. [I work at Google but have nothing to do with AMP].

miohtama 6y ago

It is cheaper just to use AMP than hiring a senior web developer to fix a website stuffed with crap.

joshuamorton 6y ago

> Except AMP sites usually aren't faster. They just get preloaded[0]. If google preloaded non-AMP sites (which is technically feasible, there has been browser extensions doing this since ages ago), they too would load "faster", fancy that! This is not feasible in a security conscious way. Preloading leaks metadata (at a minimum things like IP address, and probably much more for a useful implementation) to third party hosts without any user interaction. Even without preloading, as I understand it, amp is still faster than your "average" site since it enforces decent performance hygiene. Yes, performance conscious owners can create slightly faster sites, but most don't. The 0.0s load times for preloaded sites and potential to cache is just butter for an end user. [I work at Google but have nothing to do with AMP].