4 ms·

All that "valuable developer time" didn't make any difference - AMP did.

• SirSourdough 6y ago
  I mean sure, Google put the gun to every website and said “We are using our monopoly power to ensure your business will fail if you do not conduct business as we see fit”. Really, really positive way of bringing about change.
• afavour 6y ago
  ...how do you think those AMP pages got made other than with valuable developer time? AMP versions of sites aren't just magicked out of thin air! Without "valuable developer time" there are no AMP sites. I think the point you're actually making is that without AMP forcing these sites to be faster, they would still be slow. Which I agree with. But as I said in my original post, Google ranking sites according to their performance would have the exact same effect as forcing AMP on people, except that it would let sites choose their own implementation rather than be strong-armed into one controlled by Google.
  • muro 6y ago
    Of course. The parent argument was that the time spent differently would have the same effect. Many years of crappy slow mobile pages show differently.
    • afavour 6y ago
      > The parent argument was that the time spent differently would have the same effect. Again, no. The argument was that time spent focused on page performance would have the same effect. If Google punished slow pages in rankings that is all the incentive needed, not the creation of an entirely new platform.
      • muro 6y ago
        Ah, I missed that, thank you. I'm still not convinced it would make so much of difference, but it's definitely more likely. Any good examples out there of sites which optimized for speed and achieved similar results?