3 ms·

> Provide a front end framework that focused on performance and UX And this is huge. Non-technical users that don't care about the shady things Google did inv

> Provide a front end framework that focused on performance and UX And this is huge. Non-technical users that don't care about the shady things Google did involving AMP probably think AMP is a godsend, if they even know AMP is even a thing. AMP pages load incredibly fast, are incredibly responsive, and are far less annoying. Your typical end user will likely prefer AMP. Thing is...we don't need AMP to get those features. But somewhere along the last 10 years, web developers lost the plot and now seem to think a static blog needs to serve several megabytes of JavaScript. They think they need to implement smooth scrolling in code, when every browser already does it natively.

rsanheim 5y ago
AMP pages have been far more annoying in my experience. It breaks the standard web controls (ie no tap on the top to scroll to top), breaks copying links, and locks you into the google ecosystem at the user's expense. Thank goodness its falling out of favor.
- notreallyserio 5y ago
  IMO the issues with controls are worth the tradeoff. The alternative ends up being annoying sites like arstechnica (non-AMP) which relocates content while you're reading it.
nightpool 5y ago
> Thing is...we don't need AMP to get those features. I addressed this in another comment thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29269423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29269423), but I disagree. The fundamental problem is one of incentives—individual companies don't have the leverage to fight back against ad companies and advertisers that want to implement bad user experiences and slow loading JS. Google's adoption of AMP forces publishers and ad networks fall into line, by enforcing limits on floating ads, popover, interstitials, custom JS, etc. Is this self-interested on Google's part? Maybe. But it's hard to argue that it's not ultimately better for the consumer.
- dbbk 5y ago
  Core Web Vitals achieves this anyway. Which is why Google is switching to using those signals instead of AMP in its search ranking.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
> AMP pages load incredibly fast, are incredibly responsive Compared to an unfiltered web experience. AMP content is still burdened with mountains of unnecessary JS that hurts performance.
dbbk 5y ago
> are incredibly responsive That's not my experience. Every time I try reading a long article on an AMP page, the experience basically crashes. Text rendering stops and you're just scrolling through a blank white pages. It tries to be too clever with its rendering. And it fails almost every time.

rsanheim 5y ago

AMP pages have been far more annoying in my experience. It breaks the standard web controls (ie no tap on the top to scroll to top), breaks copying links, and locks you into the google ecosystem at the user's expense. Thank goodness its falling out of favor.

notreallyserio 5y ago
IMO the issues with controls are worth the tradeoff. The alternative ends up being annoying sites like arstechnica (non-AMP) which relocates content while you're reading it.

nightpool 5y ago

> Thing is...we don't need AMP to get those features. I addressed this in another comment thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29269423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29269423), but I disagree. The fundamental problem is one of incentives—individual companies don't have the leverage to fight back against ad companies and advertisers that want to implement bad user experiences and slow loading JS. Google's adoption of AMP forces publishers and ad networks fall into line, by enforcing limits on floating ads, popover, interstitials, custom JS, etc. Is this self-interested on Google's part? Maybe. But it's hard to argue that it's not ultimately better for the consumer.

dbbk 5y ago
Core Web Vitals achieves this anyway. Which is why Google is switching to using those signals instead of AMP in its search ranking.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

> AMP pages load incredibly fast, are incredibly responsive Compared to an unfiltered web experience. AMP content is still burdened with mountains of unnecessary JS that hurts performance.

dbbk 5y ago

> are incredibly responsive That's not my experience. Every time I try reading a long article on an AMP page, the experience basically crashes. Text rendering stops and you're just scrolling through a blank white pages. It tries to be too clever with its rendering. And it fails almost every time.