3 ms·
99% of the time I didn't want comments, I just wanted the content. AMP performance was a huge win for me as a user. I almost never wanted the "full experience
by admax88q 6y ago
99% of the time I didn't want comments, I just wanted the content.
AMP performance was a huge win for me as a user.
I almost never wanted the "full experience" of a page. I wanted its core content, quickly.
I agree AMP is anti-competitive, but if publishers made their default pages as lightweight as an AMP page _felt_ then they would have far more of a leg to stand on with users in regards to it being anti-competitive.
- p49k 6y agoPublishers can’t make their default pages feel as lightweight as AMP pages because Google won’t preload their content like they do with AMP pages.
- three_seagrass 6y agoBoth Bing and Google support preloading and prefetching HTML5 specs, independent of AMP.
- admax88q 6y agoOn a desktop 1gigabit connection: https://bestmotherfucking.website/ https://bestmotherfucking.website/ Loads almost instantly. https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/21/europe/russia-navalny-poisoning-underpants-ward/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/21/europe/russia-navalny-poisoni... Takes almost 6 seconds to finish loading and settle (content stop moving around). Pre-loading is not the only reason amp is faster. On mobile its even more dramatic.
- dbt00 6y agoThat's all well and good when you're browsing search results, but then people copy and paste shitty amp links all over the place when they no longer have any advantages (because they're not precached).