3 ms·
Or if everyone continues to use AMP because they are not able to match the performance, that’s also great? :) The entire AMP design was driven by the need to m
by jsnell 6y ago
Or if everyone continues to use AMP because they are not able to match the performance, that’s also great? :)
The entire AMP design was driven by the need to make same origin serving of the content possible in a safe manner. That is where the performance gains come from, not from having lighter markup. And that is still just as true now as it was five years ago.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoAMP pages are bloated compared to browsing with NoScript and ads blocked. It isn't hard to deliberately beat AMP performance with enough motivation to make it happen. There needs to be an upheaval of ad vendors to make self hosted images without JS viable.
- tyingq 6y agoSame origin loading also allowed Google to take over the top of your page, hijack swipe actions (to send your visitor to a competitor), and so on. Some publishers may value moving away from AMP to prevent that sort of thing in the future, despite perhaps a small cost in performance.
- acdha 6y agoThe entire AMP design was driven by a desire to put Google in charge of publishing, heading off Facebook. Putting 1MB of render-blocking JavaScript in the critical path was never good for users - just ask the Chrome developers! - but it was a strategic play which fortunately failed both because it wasn’t as fast as claimed and most publishers didn’t want to cede control of their UX.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoWhy does the same origin matter? There's no substantive difference between my page being served from Google's edge network vs. from Cloudflare's or Amazon's.