5 ms·

"Your site can be faster than AMP without using AMP" That isn't true. Google is able to cache AMP pages in their CDN and preload and pre-render them in the bro

"Your site can be faster than AMP without using AMP" That isn't true. Google is able to cache AMP pages in their CDN and preload and pre-render them in the browser or in Google News. You can't beat that with even the most optimized site. AMP, especially on iOS, is awkward for many reasons and having to support two formats by publishers isn't great, but it is unquestionably fast when rendered within a container that supports AMP.

malinens 5y ago
you can easily beat downloading hundreds of kilobytes of amp JS stuff from supa-fast and mega-optimized google CDN by not downloading JS at all or using js very conservatively
- ec109685 5y ago
  Google does all that in the background on the Google SERP page, so users don't feel that slowness at all.
- s17n 5y ago
  That is not going to happen, though.
Seirdy 5y ago
The time to first paint for a smallish website from across the planet seldom crosses the two-second mark. I would happily take that over a website that fails to load from a server <100 miles from me because my packet loss is >40%.
- ec109685 5y ago
  Trick is that google w/ AMP does all the loading in the background, so it can hide hide the latency from you.
lmm 5y ago
> That isn't true. Google is able to cache AMP pages in their CDN and preload and pre-render them in the browser or in Google News. You can't beat that with even the most optimized site. Surely you can do that same pre-rendering yourself, and serve the result of it?
- playpause 5y ago
  When you click an AMP result, your browser does not actually navigate away from Google's search result page. The search result page just dynamically updates its own DOM to show the AMP page content inline. Depending on how confident they are that you are going to tap a given result, they can even preload the actual content and render it as hidden DOM so it can be displayed the moment you release your finger. There is literally no possible way that a 'real' navigation (to a new page on a different domain) can compete with a simple DOM update.
  - lmm 5y ago
    Preloading the link can save a network roundtrip, but shouldn't the browser be able to do that (and parse and pre-render) as well? Other than that, surely replacing the entire page content involves the same amount of work for the browser as rendering a fresh page.
    - notriddle 5y ago
      They tried. It’s too complicated to do it with all of the available features. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/0nSxuuv9bBw https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/0nSxu... https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/07/nostate-prefetch https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/07/nostate-pr...
    - playpause 5y ago
      I was talking about what’s possible for content creators to do on the web platform we have today, not whether it’s possible for browser vendors to make something AMP-like work at the browser level in future. On your last sentence: no I don’t think so. There’s got to be some overhead in setting up a new JS/DOM environment, parsing the HTML and CSS, determining security constraints for the new domain name, stuff like that.

malinens 5y ago

you can easily beat downloading hundreds of kilobytes of amp JS stuff from supa-fast and mega-optimized google CDN by not downloading JS at all or using js very conservatively

ec109685 5y ago
Google does all that in the background on the Google SERP page, so users don't feel that slowness at all.
s17n 5y ago
That is not going to happen, though.

Seirdy 5y ago

The time to first paint for a smallish website from across the planet seldom crosses the two-second mark. I would happily take that over a website that fails to load from a server <100 miles from me because my packet loss is >40%.

ec109685 5y ago
Trick is that google w/ AMP does all the loading in the background, so it can hide hide the latency from you.

lmm 5y ago

> That isn't true. Google is able to cache AMP pages in their CDN and preload and pre-render them in the browser or in Google News. You can't beat that with even the most optimized site. Surely you can do that same pre-rendering yourself, and serve the result of it?

playpause 5y ago
When you click an AMP result, your browser does not actually navigate away from Google's search result page. The search result page just dynamically updates its own DOM to show the AMP page content inline. Depending on how confident they are that you are going to tap a given result, they can even preload the actual content and render it as hidden DOM so it can be displayed the moment you release your finger. There is literally no possible way that a 'real' navigation (to a new page on a different domain) can compete with a simple DOM update.
- lmm 5y ago
  Preloading the link can save a network roundtrip, but shouldn't the browser be able to do that (and parse and pre-render) as well? Other than that, surely replacing the entire page content involves the same amount of work for the browser as rendering a fresh page.
  - notriddle 5y ago
    They tried. It’s too complicated to do it with all of the available features. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/0nSxuuv9bBw https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/0nSxu... https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/07/nostate-prefetch https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2018/07/nostate-pr...
  - playpause 5y ago
    I was talking about what’s possible for content creators to do on the web platform we have today, not whether it’s possible for browser vendors to make something AMP-like work at the browser level in future. On your last sentence: no I don’t think so. There’s got to be some overhead in setting up a new JS/DOM environment, parsing the HTML and CSS, determining security constraints for the new domain name, stuff like that.