5 ms·
The whole article is riddled with lies and misleading points. > they didn’t go to BBC’s website; they view a copy of the BBC’s content on google.com That's ex
by ehsankia 6y ago
The whole article is riddled with lies and misleading points.
> they didn’t go to BBC’s website; they view a copy of the BBC’s content on google.com
That's exactly what a CDN is. The only difference between AMP cache and CloudFlare is that the latter uses some DNS trickery to show BBC's domain name, whereas Google can't. Google solved this in Chrome, and there are other ways to solve this with Web Packages [1] and Signed HTTP exchanges which allows the content to be served from Google but with the original url, without DNS changes.
[1] https://blog.amp.dev/2018/05/08/a-first-look-at-using-web-packaging-to-improve-amp-urls/ https://blog.amp.dev/2018/05/08/a-first-look-at-using-web-pa...
- majewsky 6y agoThe difference is that the BBC is a customer of CloudFlare, and that contractual relationship provides a sound legal basis for CloudFlare serving the BBC's content. There is nothing of the sort between the BBC and Google in the AMP case, just a shaky implied-in-fact contract along the lines of "if you put AMP on your website, you consent to us pretending that we're you and serving it to people on your behalf".
- tyingq 6y agoCloudflare also doesn't shove their own UI into the top of your page and hijack left/right swipes on your page.
- ehsankia 6y agoI believe you can use AMP without the AMP cache, therefore the decision it's entirely in the hands of the website owner. But, surprisingly, almost everyone wants to use the free world scale fast cache.