I don’t even understand how AMP is legal or how they could possibly argue it gives any benefit to the user. Every single AMP page i’ve used has broken CSS and often broken content.
The speed boost is negligible if it even exists and all it serves to do is add an additional stupid pop up I have to click out of to read a web page.
I really wish I could switch to DDG but queries related to anything technical, like biology or programming, usually fail to turn up any relevant results.
For a contrasting anecdote, when I'm traveling abroad and sometimes get stuck with 20-50 kb/s transfer speeds, AMP is the difference between waiting an incessant amount of time and getting pretty instantaneous loading.
On fast internet? Yeah, negligible. On non US/European internet, though, it's very tangible.
What websites are you noticing better performance? I usually encounter AMP on reddit and, at least on my phone, it seems to make the page load even slower.
On basically anything that uses it. I'll give an example from the google feed on my phone, now. Some article on zdnet about RedHat discontinuing CentOS in favor of stream.
If I open the AMP link [0] in Firefox and measure the bandwidth used, it's around 685 kilobytes transferred in 1.32 seconds. The original article transfers almost 3.6 megabytes over 3.89 seconds, with the page taking almost 9 seconds total to load in, vs only 1.43 seconds total on the AMP page.
This is on my residential internet on an 8 core, 32 thread POWER9 workstation. My internet isn't great, but it's a heck of a lot better than the 15-40 kb/s I got overseas. There, that full page would take almost 2 whole minutes to load, versus only 20 seconds.
Obviously, there's more to this -- the non-AMP page loads its text before the other elements, so it's not like you'd have to wait the entire 2 minutes to begin reading. And beyond the technology, there are other reasons to not use AMP.
But suggesting we shouldn't use AMP because it's bad technology or broken isn't really telling the whole story. There are plenty of people who will get much better experiences with AMP than whatever fat pages would otherwise get shoved their way.
We shouldn't become dependent on google for this, but we also shouldn't pretend like there isn't a need for AMP, at least for some people.
i use old.reddit.com on my phone, since ironically the mobile version is too bloated to ever finish loading before I give up on my cheap mobile internet.
I'm assuming you must be running some kind of extension or blocker that is interfering?
There are plenty of criticisms of AMP but failing to load content isn't really one of them. Also the speed boost is massive. AMP pages usually show content instantaneously due to precaching, while a new site takes 5-7 seconds to load.
That’s not my experience at all, at least on iOS. I notice essentially no performance improvement when accessing AMP vs when I inevitably choose to load the non-AMP site because AMP sucks terribly.
There’s a really easy answer here: you’re all talking past each other.
AMP isn’t just a standard for “fast webpages”. It’s also a technique google uses to embed other pages in their search results, such that:
- Google rehosts the result on google.com (with the same HTTP2 connection you already have open to their server)
- Sites are eagerly loaded in the background even if you don’t click them (making them appear instantaneous)
There’s a difference between “I was sent a link to a site that uses AMP and I opened it” (which may be slow) and “I came across a site while searching on google” (which is nearly always fast.)
AMP-the-standard gives google the guarantees necessary to enable hosting your site inside the google search results. This is why it’s perceived as fast. If you’re connecting to the original site itself, outside the context of a google search (or some equivalent... I know Facebook does similar re-hosting) you’re not going to see as much of a speed gain.
(Side note: if AMP-the-standard was all that it was and the speed gains only came from having less bloated JS and requiring all on-screen elements to have known sizes to prevent pop-in, I’d love it. It’s what google does to it in its search results that I hate.)
My typical experience with AMP on an iPhone SE2 running iOS 14 has been that it either takes 10+ seconds to load or simply never does. I am not using any sort of ad blocker.
This obviously isn't the typical experience with AMP, but they clearly have something broken somewhere.
Do you have JavaScript turned off? Or any kind of blocker on your router? Any kind of content filter? Some kind of custom DNS?
Because that is absolutely not a normal experience. My SE2 on iOS 14 loads AMP instantly.
I don't know of any evidence that AMP is broken or shoddily coded in a way that affects a significant proportion of users... it's far more likely you've got something actively interfering.
I get that there are philosophical issues with AMP and respect and agree with many of those, but I don't understand how people claim with a straight face that it's worse from an end user perspective. Even setting aside load speed, it fixes my top two pet peeves:
- Content moving around for a few seconds after the page loads (and of course right when I go to click on something).
It's way worse. A prominent American news outlet's AMP pages have Google ads obscuring the text of the article. In the last week AMP added an additional click before you can get the actual URL of the article to be able to read the text. The additional click takes the form of a fake sharing menu in the browser. It's sort of understandable that they would want to add this given that Android's built-in sharing menu takes multiple seconds to load on Google's flagship phones, but the fake menu lacks "copy to clipboard" so it cannot be used to go to the actual article.
Why wouldn't it be legal? Every site that uses it has to specifically add it and opt-in. Sites are willingly implementing AMP pages and telling Google etc. that the page exists and can be cached/served as an alternative to the original page link.
I'm curious what types of programming questions you can't get via DDG? I use it exclusively and very rarely have to look to Google (as in <1x month). Really the only time I revert to Google is if the issue is very fresh (eg some new iOS bug from the past 24hr). Also, you can prepend search with "!so" on DDG and go straight to Stack Overflow.
It's pretty bad at stuff like symbols. Searching "c ++ operator" in DDG returns a bunch of "operators in C" results like [1]. On Google, the first two results are pages about increment and decrement operators.
I can see how that can be confusing :p On Google I got the increment operator as the top result (though not specifically for C language). On DDG I got an equivalent result for fifth result. Second search result on Google which is the increment operator for C++ in C++ reference was probably the best result?
Personally for me, when I search something like this I tend to lookup the language reference directly and find the operator I want there since it's a very specific query with a very specific answer. But yeah, ddg, ecosia both fall short on this query.
Web developers deliver crap, ad laden slow websites - with HORRIBLE users experiences.
Content jumps around as the web page loads, sometimes even 5 - 10 seconds later!
Autoplaying content is hell - but they seem to love it.
Popovers, unders and sliders gallore.
And for some reasons the GIANT mess of analytics trackers and CSS and dynamic content means the thing is
a) slow
b) nightmare on a phone
Google has basically FORCED a bunch of these idiots to actually make a page usable and pleasant. It loads fast.
What I don't get - all these high and mighty web devs can't seem to deliver clean websites that work without Google beating them over the heads with AMP. Is it that they cower in front of management with demands for YET ANOTHER tracker (seriously, websites ship with like 10 trackers - why?) They feel the need to show off their lazy loading dynamic content skills that jank the page?
So thank goodness for AMP, perhaps developers will actually try to compete with it a bit by building usable non-amp websites.
And trust me, users are getting trained that the lighting bolt actually does mean FAST.
Anyways - when I read another rant from a web developer about AMP - a small request. How about de-jankifying and de-scamifying the web first a bit more? Then we won't need to turn to google for all this stuff.
Come on, don't call the rank and file web developers "idiots".
They (we) carry some responsibility for this but it is most definitely shared with stakeholders (often higher ups that determine whether you have food on your table next month) that push this bullshit.
If no web developer is happy with garbage, why do the majority of sites resemblance a dumpster fire?
I'll fully back the claim the rank and file web developers are idiots. But primarily because the smart ones would never consider themselves just 'web developers'.
Google has a big stick which they’ve used to whack marketing and management with.
Listening to these developers rant about what is probably the fastest and most user friendly effort while they push out stuff that makes yours eyes bleed is ridiculous.
All web developers should all be forced to browse with Adblock off and no auto play block.
Mgmt if it shows a tiny bump in some ad click metric for a quarter will shove a popover out while they burn the long term value in the web and their sites.
The fact that google has to push these types of things is embarrassing.
Google favourably ranks "giant, ad laden slow websites with giant mess of analytics trackers" because they make money from the ads and they are the ones tracking you. They are giving you the disease and then trying to sell you "treatment" - which happens to be another disease.
I have spent countless hours doing real optimizations on a website with real traffic, without submitting to AMP (which I view as a disgusting move by Google and everyone involved with it.) (Traffic which, by the way, does not reflect the device profiles of what Google considers the "average" user, based on real vs. lab results in Lighthouse -- which is forcing us to work on issues that are not proportionally relevant to our business, though I will concede it's a positive improvement for us overall. But still an unwanted Google influence, like most SEO.. but moreso.)
Core Web Vitals should render AMP irrelevant, and thus seeing as both projects are being pushed by Google, it's time Google takes AMP behind the barn. Unfortunately Core Web Vitals takes a pretty hard stance against bleeding edge technology like (Vue/React) server side rendering with client hydration. Anything beyond a todo app starts to see considerable main thread time during hydration which obliterates the Core Web Vitals scores. I predict with continued focus on CWV we will see: much greater focus on startup times for client side apps (including better hydration strategies), and maybe even some server-side only JS front end frameworks -- more aligned with the JAMstack idea (everything old is new again, yay.)
As much grief as CWV has caused me, it is the correct solution to the problem of slow websites and its impending inclusion in Google's page rankings should have a positive impact on the overall health of the web.
Why people who aren't being paid by Google continue to defend AMP absolutely baffles me.
> Unfortunately Core Web Vitals takes a pretty hard stance against bleeding edge technology like (Vue/React) server side rendering with client hydration. Anything beyond a todo app starts to see considerable main thread time during hydration which obliterates the Core Web Vitals scores. I predict with continued focus on CWV we will see: much greater focus on startup times for client side apps (including better hydration strategies)...
To me, this doesn't sound unfortunate, it sounds great! I'm so tired of the drag that these frameworks cause when they are applied in situations which don't help. There are definitely use cases for such heavy and slow frameworks, but they should not be used for standard web pages, and should pay the penalty in search results when a web page with similar information is more responsive.
I say unfortunately because in our case the use is legitimate and we're working hard to get everything optimized outside of the main thread time (we've even built our own image service that we can use to dynamically change image resolution and quality based on the device form factor.) But I agree they are overused in general.
> I have spent countless hours doing real optimizations
> As much grief as CWV has caused me, it is the correct solution to the problem of slow websites
Maybe core web vitals will succeed but I'm skeptical. A big part of AMP's success was ease of implementation. Sites with skilled, motivated, and empowered developers are going to be fine regardless of what technology Google tries to push. It's the other sites (ie, most sites) that I worry about.
AMP with a few tweaks as "here's a Google recommended ready-to-roll framework for doing fast mobile sites" is mostly fine, and as easy to implement technically. But probably hard to get companies to use if not "strongly motivated".
Thought experiment: Divorce AMP from Google. Google withdraws from being the AMP standards author and "prototype" AMP cache provider. The project becomes truly non-commercial and is handed over to a non-profit that users trust, let's say, hypothetically, the Internet Archive. The IA adopts as AMP's goal: making web pages less expensive to crawl (ideally, by parties other than Google) as well as making pages faster on mobile. In addition, the AMP standard is revised to require that AMP pages must allow equal access by all clients, whether "browsers", "bots" or otherwise. No preferential treatment for certain browsers, e.g., Chrome, or certain search engines, e.g., Googlebot.
Bias disclosure: I use a text-only browser and AMP pages look great in links. For a links user, the AMP version can be useful on some sites that have a large amount of cruft, e.g., excessive number of same site URLs, at the top of the page, with the content buried below it, and yet more cruft at the bottom. AMP eliminates the necessary scrolling on such sites.
Before I even knew what AMP was, I saw the lightning bolt next to search results and I quickly realized that the lightning bolt mean that the site would load fast on my phone. I loved it. So many modern sites are hostile to usability, that part of me is sad to see AMP being attacked. I don't want Google to own the web, but I don't trust that web developers can stand up for sane usability practices anymore.
In my experience it's generally not that web developers won't stand up for sane usability practices but (in most cases) they lack the political clout within organisations for their standing up for sane usability pracatice to have any impact on policy.
It’s easy to say “Ignore Amp” when you’re not a content site that depends on Google Search to stay alive. Sadly, for a large amount of sites on the web, what Google says is what goes. Chasing a #1 keyword ranking puts food on people’s tables. It’s not always as easy as “this thing is bad: stop using it!”
There will need to be a bigger driving force to get amp out of popularity. As long as AMP pages unlock preferential treatment in search results (mobile carousels), sites that want to compete will be forced to use them.
Maybe take a leaf from Google's history (the campaign against IE6) and ensure every AMP page includes a recommendation to switch search engine as Google is 'phasing out the ability to find webpages'.
I'm only half joking...
> Chasing a #1 keyword ranking puts food on people’s tables
Totally agree with you about this.
> There will need to be a bigger driving force to get amp out of popularity
Oddly enough the bigger driving force will almost certainly be the internal politics of Google causing it be shoved on the pile of "things we used to think were important" out the back of the Googleplex.
It's not the same as all possibilities. It's just arguing that you should avoid having an AMP and a regular version of every piece of content on your site. You should either go all in or avoid it entirely. And if you must provide an AMP version along with the regular one, only do it for the most important pages.
The sentence is formulated really unfortunate, though. I also wouldn't approve it.
I’d rate them excellent, nightmare hellscape, and bad.
The amount of work required to efficiently deliver a second version of your content sounds like such a horrible terrible idea. HN mindset about Google aside, something strictly AMP would likely be a easier to replace than the mess that tries to do both.
I switched to DuckDuckGo on mobile a while back because it meant that I didn’t have to see constant AMP results. Even though I think DuckDuckGo’s search results aren’t nearly as good I have no intention of going back.
Same here, I use DDG and Firefox. I do open google occasionally when I'm searching for a nearby restaurant. Unfortunately the reason the restaurant comes up in Google is all the invasive stuff they've tracked me with over the last 14 years.
A website I consult in a popular sports niche and has a slow, broken, ad-infested main website grew its traffic 500% with AMP.
On the main website, it's still broken. On AMP it's... AMP. So Google thinks it's fast enough/good enough.
On AMP we implemented a lot of annoying CTAs to go to the main website. ”Read Full Article here” ”Read more” ”Details at...”
In the past this website would have needed to optimize its real website to gain this much visibility in the search engines. Now they just AMP, then they optimize their AMP to real-world-website CTR, and can continue to have a... sub ideal.... website.
AMP is whitelisted cloaking for slow websites. And a burden on webmasters and developers.
I always say AMP is the internet if germans (most AMP leads were at one point germans) would have invented it (I am Austrian, we always joke about Germans ): Efficient, mostly boring and long term innovation harmful.
I am rooting for AMP to die. Sadly it will still be around for about 5 years until the ”what a great journey” blogpost.
So Google can push through a gatekeeping approach to further controlling online content. After you take hostages, then you decide what kind of ransom you want. It's how every monopoly tends to behave, they push outward leveraging their position and try to put as many defensive moats into place as they can.
If speed was actually their concern, they happen to control a search monopoly that pretends to very much care about performance and speed. If any of that were really true, they can practically flip a switch and smash every slow site on the Web. Aggressively turn up the penalty on such terrible sites. In less than a year they'd all jump to and get in line, or they would die, banished from all search results (sorry, your site sucks so bad we're not even going to index that garbage). Google is happy to banish sites for political-ideological reasons based on the bias of their employees, but they can't be bothered for performance reasons? It reveals a lot as Google knows it would be easy to fix without AMP. Speed is not the primary agenda of AMP, control is; speed is an excellent cover story.
> So Google can push through a gatekeeping approach to further controlling online content. After you take hostages, then you decide what kind of ransom you want.
Just like Apple.
Fuck all of these companies. The DOJ needs to split them at the seams.
Edit: damn these downvotes. I typed out an essay as a response to someone asking about the Great Filter in another thread, and now HN is blocking me for posting due to getting so many downvotes.
I hate the Apple users censoring everyone that disagrees with them or points out negative things about their company. It's a huge problem.
The perfect analogy for Apple is the CCP. Developers have to behave exactly like Apple wants to distribute software, or they're toast. And Apple users rush to defend this. They're "protected" by big Papa Bear Apple. They don't see this as a reduction of freedoms or strong arming. They got what they wanted and they're fervent about it, and they don't see the bigger picture.
Apple isn't even protecting people. They're protecting their market lead. Apple users mean shit to them. They'd let us repair and install on our own if otherwise. The brand goes to people's heads just like other luxury brands (BMW, Dior, Gucci, etc.) - it's a lifestyle that needs to be signaled and defended.
Isn't it obvious that they're bad for the world?
Liberty or death. When did we forget that?
I really like Nintendo. I grew up with them. Zelda is the best thing ever. It's the Miyazaki of gaming. But you know what? They're fucking assholes to fans. They take down artistic endeavors that companies like Square Enix and Sega encourage. They're shutting down the vibrant Melee tournament scene. And for that, they've earned my scorn.
You can like something your favorite company makes but also hate their actions.
Apple isn't a loving mother. It's an enterprise and we're just users. They shouldn't have such power at their disposal. It's bad for all of us.
The computing sector shouldn't be Apple's own private fiefdom.
Exit since I still can't post responses:
I'm taking this up with Lucy McBath (D-GA) instead. I hope that everyone else that sees the incredible harm Apple is doing takes an hour to write their legislators as well. Spell out the problem so they can understand it. Arguing with people online isn't as effective as getting the DOJ to address the problem.
That's a terrible analogy. Apple offers products and services to customers who with to pay for them. The CCP controls a region.
With respect to the rest of your shotgun-spray of a commend, a similar argument could be made against people who hate on a company with no real measure of substance.
The “fuck you” anger in your comment + The hysteria in your edit is exactly why the global timeout exists: Sometimes it’s good to take a break and calm down from writing comments.
> I typed out an essay as a response to someone asking about the Great Filter in another thread, and now HN is blocking me for posting due to getting so many downvotes.
Save it in a file and post later because I want to read it.
Nintendo is also known to be a horrible company to work for. Like Apple their work is part of our personal histories. In the 90's I can remember hearing other students playing Zelda: "Volga needs food badly."
Someone is criticising your choice of analogy for Apple. May I suggest Church of Scientology as an alternate.
Like CoS, if you cross Apple, their outside counsel will come after you with a vengeance. Apple is the ultimate client. No other pockets are as deep.
Good luck getting DOJ or anyone to go after Apple. They have tremendous financial reserves and "celebrity endorsement".
"improving" the website would've been against business goals. That's the point GP is making - you don't need to "improve" your website (by removing slow ads, for example), if you can just use AMP as a cloak and make people visit your website using CTAs on amp. Take Reddit: their amp page is basically an ad for their shitty mobile page.
But how would they increase loading speed on their main website to get a better ranking? Probably like many others: only load empty frames and pull in all actual content later. Which is similarly awful. With the difference that AMP can easily be parsed by e.g. screen readers.
But seriously: why do you assume that improving their loading speed would only be possible with mediocre outcomes?
The problem here isn't that it's impossible to create a fast website, it's really not all that hard. The problem is prioritizing that over quick short term wins and "sexier" work.
To make a fast website is rather easy, if you alone decide about it. But now think of a company, where marketing wants a specific corporate design, controlling wants 20 trackers, finance wants ads, etc. - and everything needs to work with whatever CMS was implemented 10 years ago. Now try to make all that into a fast website.
AMP is an anti-competitive abortion that should just die.
It's Google throwing its weight to force websites into dubious practices all in favor of an alleged performance. Users also get the short end by being served low quality pages instead of the full experiences they expect.
I have this extension [1] to make sure I never visit an AMP page again.
It actually forces websites into good practices. Maybe not the absolute best, but most of the times, the AMP site is just better, or at least, faster.
People usually don't want a "full experience" when reading news. Especially when the "full experience" is pop-up ads and autoplaying video.
The bad part about AMP is that it is tied to Google services. But once de-Googled, AMP is really good 99% of the times, I leave 1% for those web designers who really use their skills to provide a better user experience, and do it right.
Considering all the extra JS it requires to preload, I also question it from a practical standpoint.
Of course, if you are otherwise including 3MB of JS for no reason, and it isn't cached, and you aren't using a CDN, maybe, perhaps, Google's CDN might serve it faster..
Though to be fair, I use FF, so AMP is hostile to it, and anyways FF has this great reader mode..
But do you have any numbers to back up the claims that any AMP pages are ever better?
Yep, I actually like the idea of a narrow standard like AMP for fast loading content pages.
The hosting/caching of those pages on outside caches is a bit more problematic, especially when it gets used by Google to de-emphasize the destination site in favor of flicking through Google results.
I think the same idea implemented as a browser standard would have much better reception.
> The hosting/caching of those pages on outside caches is a bit more problematic, especially when it gets used by Google to de-emphasize the destination site in favor of flicking through Google results.
I think this gets at a core tension - there are three parties involved in a search results page. The search engine, the destination site, and the user. Each has its own set of incentives. Both search engine and destination site have this bizarre idea that they have some kind of root-given right to the user's undivided attention for as long as they like.
The user's interests are frequently poorly represented. They rarely include giving either search engine or destination site the amount of engagement each feels they deserve. Often, but not always, the search engine is somewhat better aligned with the user.
> I think the same idea implemented as a browser standard would have much better reception.
I personally have quite deep doubts. A standard like AMP works only because it can require adhering very strictly to a tightly written specification that blocks a lot of the things website authors want to do. I suspect AMP as a browser standard would produce a vast amount of forever broken webpages before publishers ditched it due to poor ad revenues and went back to their crappy, bloated, slow, ad-laden pages.
The ability to load it into a CDN controlled by someone else - kind of a huge deal for performance reasons - is exactly the key feature that's user-friendly and hated by publishers. It's the kind of thing that would be cut out of a browser standard or just ignored by publishers.
> The user's interests are frequently poorly represented.
The user's interests should be looked after by the browser. A true "user agent" should act on behalf of the user's preferences, fetching only what the user says they need, and rendering it in a manner that the user wants, not necessarily how the web developer wants. We've gotten far away from this ideal over the years, with browsers ceding more and more control to web developers. Users have lesser and lesser say as to how their browsers render web sites, to the point where we now just have super-blunt instruments like ad blockers and "Disable javascript".
If a web site is too slow, or choked with ads, or doesn't use an accessible color scheme, or uses a font too small, I want my browser to do something about it. I don't want to have to rely on the web developer (or Google) to adopt my own preferences. And if my browser even allows this, the function should be easy to use, not buried deep in Settings.
I think there's a mismatch here that only becomes apparent when you consider what level each web service and the browser are operating on. Search engines and publishers are considering intent - which is relatively easy because they have a small area over which to infer it. Browsers are operating as smart tools capable of interfacing but not capable of understanding intent because the scope of possibility is so broad.
You're right. User agents should be for the user. They should expose options and controls for the user. They should tune and change and transform things for the user. They should understand what the user wants and make life easier for the user.
I am just skeptical that browsers are ever going to be true user agents and capable of fully representing the user's interests and intent.
> People usually don't want a "full experience" when reading news.
But the question is do they want news sites to get promoted over the actual content they were looking for because news sites can be amped and dynamic content sites can not be amped?
It’s also straight up bad for what it does. Like whenever I end up viewing an amp article on mobile half the time rather than scrolling down the page I accidentally swipe to the next article interrupting my reading.
Also AMP pages hijack Chrome Mobile's menu bar so you can't close the tab or switch to another one without scrolling all the way to the top of the page. That's straight up malicious.
In my experience AMP website would always be missing features like comments or be bugged in other ways so I usually have to load the full website anyway. It just wastes my time and is one of the reasons why I switched away from Google search.
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.
That'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).
Isn't this at least in part because google was caching the pages & serving them (possibly pre-loading them, I don't know) from their own Google CDN? So comparing the speed of loading a performant page from google's CDN from a SERP click vs. loading the page from the origin is not really a fair comparison. My website would be faster if it were in a warm google CDN cache as well :)
Yeah, but the only reason that AMP is able to preload the page from Google's (or Cloudflare's) CDN cache without leaking your information to the website is because of all the other design decisions.
This is another purported benefit of serving AMP pages but doesn't this imply publications weren't already using CDN's previously or that Google's CDN is much faster than competitors? I would guess neither of those are true.
The entire design of AMP is such that amp links can be safely preloaded by the browser, making effective load times 0ms, dinner the content is already on your device when your click the link.
There was a recent article on HN that alleged that google slowed down non-amp pages (by delaying the execution of the link-click) in order to further amp's perceived improvement.
Performance only improved for sites that have 5 or 6 ads going across your screen as you scroll and an autoplaying ad video taking up a good potion of the actual content.
But if you're looking for something more generally extensible to work around AMP and other things that make the modern mobile internet frustrating, we've been working on a browser for iOS that's extensible with low code/no-code extensions as well as JS.
What is anticompetitive about AMP? Publishers publish in one format, and it is picked up by multiple link aggregators. It is the opposite of anticompetitive.
When AMP first came out in 2015, I had a mobile internet plan with some pretty extreme data caps with throttling down to LTE after they were exceeded. I absolutely loved AMP. I imagine I was in the target audience.
Oh, besides the back-end technical mess that is AMP, just from the standpoint of a user, one can encounter catastrophic faults with its design:
- can't share articles using android's builtin share widgets because it points to the amp pages
- Navigating away using "Open in $BROWSER" option from the Google app in Android opens up the amp page again instead of the source page.
- can't see embedded article widgets like tweet blocks, maps, overlays, animations
- Attempting to do things like Comment on an article triggers navigation away from the AMP page to the actual site, forcing you to then scroll down once more
I've become accustomed to opening AMP pages and looking for "View article on actual site" link as a matter of course. It's just so horrible.
I looked into AMP while working on Post Office Map (a.k.a. post office near me) [1], after a lot of looking into structured data and something called JSON-LD [2] which I'd never heard of, ultimately I read that preparing my site for AMP might actually _break_ my site, and there is no guarantee of any benefit. A lot of people are using AMP for SEO, but I suspect that's a fool's game - Google is smart enough to know that just being AMP-ready doesn't mean anything for relevance.
I can pick an AMP site out almost immediately. I click on a link somewhere, and a moment later as I start to the read the article I'm like: "this looks weird, like a crappy AMP site not a regular website!" I inspect the URL and sure enough it is. I always switch to the real site at the earliest opportunity. So not only is AMP terrible regarding the open web as others have commented, it's also freaking annoying on a pure UX level.
AMP is here to stay. Google shows a special lightning bolt Mark on amp pages and prioritizes those results. As long as google favors Amp, it makes business sense to use it.
Google needs an anti-trust slap for Amp. Until it gets it, it’s here to stay.
One thing i find irritating about AMP pages is that, even Google chrome's page translation feature doesn't work unless you navigate to the non-AMP page
"Rank"? They claim no. But the mobile carousel is available only for AMP content, and that's actually _above_ the rankings. So it depends how you spin it.
“When an AMP page is available, it can be featured on mobile search as part of rich results and carousels. While AMP itself isn't a ranking factor, speed is a ranking factor for Google Search.”
Not when clicked to from a link aggregator that has its own AMP cache like Google, Bing, or Baidu. In that case, the AMP page will often be prerendered and load instantly.
Isn't that almost guaranteed? As far as I can tell, AMP does three things:
1. It enforces some good practices / forbids certain expensive browser features.
2. It lazily loads images only when they are scrolled in.
3. It fucks up scroll-to-top and other scrolling behavior on iOS.
The first you can do with or without AMP.
The second doesn't cause anything above the fold to load any faster. If anything, you get an additional delay until content shows up when scrolling, because the browser was prevented from continuing to download the other images in the background.
The third regularly causes me to be done with a site in just a few seconds, which I guess is an optimization of some kind.
It's very achievable if you have full control over the site and you know what you're doing... However that's frequently not the case in many large companies.
Many times it just comes down to something along the lines of these pages being run by non-technical folks in sales/marketing that are just click-to-adding widgets/plugins/tags every week without ever removing anything. As a result, you see a lot of very low-hanging fruit make it into the final production site. It's not unheard of to see a website of a household name brand load in multiple versions of the entire jQuery library, for example. I've personally seen a major site from a recognizable brand that otherwise loaded in <1MB, but then proceeded to load Google Tag Manager and pull down an extra 15MB of JS/images.
My point is, I think you're discounting the "AMP enforces some good best practices / forbids some bad patterns" point.
There's a few other things AMP does, it prevents a lot of repaints by allowing the browser to determine the layout of the page at initial load time. All content areas are predefined, so you won't have things change or your scroll position modified because some advertisement loaded 5 seconds in and suddenly you're scrolled up from where you were.
2 is also a bit of an oversimplification. It'll load images if they're likely to be scrolled to, which I expect is some heuristic based on distance below the fold, and it may cause above the fold content to load faster since it doesn't need to compete with below the fold content (on very fast connections this may not matter, on slower connections it probably does).
It's a Prisoner's dilemma then. I can hate AMP all I want, but I'm not going to remove it from my hypothetical web page. If I do, there will be others who don't.
> While AMP itself isn't a ranking factor, speed is a ranking factor for Google Search.
Isn't that hyper-misleading? Click-through is a ranking factor, and especially click-through without return and click-through to something else on same results page, and being on the mobile carousel increases click-through. Or do they exclude those clicks from ranking?
Google announced back in May that Core Web Vitals would become ranking factors next year, and more recently they recently announced that this would happen in May 2021 (a year after the first warning)
Largest Contentful Paint is something I don't get at all. How is this helping overall performance? A fast and light site typically does well on this metric, but a site that does well on this metric isn't necessarily fast and light.
My conversations with Google reps and experience at an agency differ from this. My experience has been and Google reps have confirmed to me that a performant enough site will not benefit from enabling amp.
It seems like they do assume amp pages are high-performance, but they're not the only way to achieve high performance.
Google can't say this directly; forcing people to use your upsell for preferential treatment is likely anti-competitive. Instead, Google ranks on page speed (among many many factors), and then offer a proprietary tool (AMP) that promises to help.
It's similarly easy to make your website slower than it would be with AMP. Absent a performance advocate in the development team, the features that reduce performance are much more apparent and valuable to most businesses.
Google could use dns-prefetch to tell the browser to to pre-fetch the DNS records for the domains in the top search results... That would decrease page load time up to one second! (the caching being the main advantage of AMP - it would make AMP unnecessary) Really, why are not browsers pre-fetching DNS records automatically for all links visible on the screen!?
For HTTPS sites Google could be trusted with providing the IP for the domain, then no extra lookup would be needed, and there would be even less tracking (by the ISP).
DNS lookups is however very cheap due to several layers of caching (browser, OS, router, ISP, etc).
Just plain text, if I want more, then I go look at the ad revenue site and I'm good to go. More news should be available to the public. And since you asked, I do send an annual donation to NPR to cover the usage of the text site.
What about the people who'd just prefer not to waste megabytes of data for loading what could as well be expressed in a few dozen kilobytes of text and some lightweight stylesheets, a la https://thebestmotherfucking.website/
Now, AMP probably isn't the best solution for the problem, as many of the comments and other sources on the Internet do point out, but the website obesity crisis ( https://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm ) is probably the actual problem that should be addressed, rather than just attempting to downplay the problem by saying that advances in how fast connections are will make it less annoying.
Of course, the technical advancements are nice, but it still feels like some version of Wirth's law ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth%27s_law ) that's applied to the web, where the pages themselves should just be more lightweight and both drain less battery and consume less power (as well as require less processing power to render, because some of the modern sites are ridiculous in this regard, i can no longer have 50+ tabs open on a device with 4 GB of RAM without using tab suspension plugins).
Wildcard blocking the following domains will break/disable AMP pretty much everywhere, leaving only the header bar (from which you can click to the original page):
- google.com/amp
- ampproject.org
I've been including AMP in my blocklist for quite a while now, and while I've occasionally felt like I'm tilting at windmills, it's honestly not much more inconvenient.
Before blocking AMP, I would get confused for a few seconds by a broken page that looked like a real page. Now I just see an empty page immediately, prompting me to get to the real page more quickly.
The speed boost is negligible if it even exists and all it serves to do is add an additional stupid pop up I have to click out of to read a web page.
I really wish I could switch to DDG but queries related to anything technical, like biology or programming, usually fail to turn up any relevant results.