4 ms·

> AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered

> AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. This is not even wrong. I'm sorry; I never post just to criticize someone's comment. But yours was the top comment on the page and was, in addition to being wrong, condescending to an author who is clearly very knowledgeable (I say that as a web publisher who has monetized with ads for more than a decade). From the article: > [The recent DOJ lawsuit against Google] claims that Google falsely told publishers that adopting AMP would enhance load times, even though the company’s employees knew that it only improved the “median of performance” and actually loaded slower than some speed optimization techniques publishers had been using. It alleges that AMP pages brought 40% less revenue to publishers. The complaint states that AMP’s speed benefits “were also at least partly a result of Google’s throttling. Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a ‘nice comparative boost.‘” This is a very big deal and a huge trust buster, and a giant dick move by Google against publishers. It's literally an evil act by a company that said Don't be Evil. The article is spot on that AMP has irreparably damaged publishers' trust.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
It decreases load times for sites pulling in 20+ third party scripts. The purpose of AMP is to cut away that hot garbage. Sadly it hasn't worked at shaming these poorly designed sites into correcting their ways.
- rrix2 5y ago
  and what the lawsuit is alleging is that the opposite is also true: that AMP increased the load time for sites which load advertisements faster than AMP ads and "cut away that hot garbage" themselve, by introducing a preload delay for content to render
- codyogden 5y ago
  > The purpose of AMP The stated purpose of AMP was to cut down load times. Does it do that? Sure. But the class action suit alleges that the intended purpose of AMP was to interfere with header bidding for ad placements in order to abuse Google’s monopoly power.
- grey-area 5y ago
  That is not the purpose of AMP, that’s the superficially plausible line used to sell you on it.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    Yes. A trojan horse has to be pretty, else nobody will pull it inside their gate.
lern_too_spel 5y ago
> This is not even wrong. I provided a link that explains exactly how it works. The reason it's not even wrong is that it's absolutely correct. I say that as somebody who has actually read some AMP docs and understands the value proposal of same origin serving for prerendering. > This is a very big deal and a huge trust buster It would be if true, but blindly trusting the prosecutor is a huge patsy move on the author's part. They have no clue what the mechanism is. I provided it.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

It decreases load times for sites pulling in 20+ third party scripts. The purpose of AMP is to cut away that hot garbage. Sadly it hasn't worked at shaming these poorly designed sites into correcting their ways.

rrix2 5y ago
and what the lawsuit is alleging is that the opposite is also true: that AMP increased the load time for sites which load advertisements faster than AMP ads and "cut away that hot garbage" themselve, by introducing a preload delay for content to render
codyogden 5y ago
> The purpose of AMP The stated purpose of AMP was to cut down load times. Does it do that? Sure. But the class action suit alleges that the intended purpose of AMP was to interfere with header bidding for ad placements in order to abuse Google’s monopoly power.
grey-area 5y ago
That is not the purpose of AMP, that’s the superficially plausible line used to sell you on it.
- tyingq 5y ago
  Yes. A trojan horse has to be pretty, else nobody will pull it inside their gate.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

> This is not even wrong. I provided a link that explains exactly how it works. The reason it's not even wrong is that it's absolutely correct. I say that as somebody who has actually read some AMP docs and understands the value proposal of same origin serving for prerendering. > This is a very big deal and a huge trust buster It would be if true, but blindly trusting the prosecutor is a huge patsy move on the author's part. They have no clue what the mechanism is. I provided it.