I love these posts - this has been talked to death.
The last thread had some good illustrations comparing media sites non-AMP pages (the bloat from ads / javascript / etc was INCREDIBLE) to AMP pages.
Google puts a little icon next to amp pages at least some of the time. These pages usually load VERY quickly in my experience - somehow whatever AMP/Google is doing results in less bloated pages on these AMP pages.
I wouldn't be surprised if users start naturally gravitating to these pages for the better experience. I know I have sometimes just because I know the page is not going to trap me on their site if they are AMP. I can usually get back to search results with AMP, where other sites do a weird thing where they pop up a registration page in front, then even if you fight through that you have to fight through some registration redirects to get back.
I wish google would push down news sites I don't have memberships too though - banging on paywalls is annoying - I pay for a few sites already -> be great to have those be the ones surfaced most often.
> I wouldn't be surprised if users start naturally gravitating to these pages for the better experience.
If this were true at all, these sites would have lost their mobile traffic. At worst, google could downrank them. This whole AMP thing is a glaringly terrible idea and such an incredible arm-twisting that should be scaring developers away from google.
It's not difficult to see amp for what it is: an evil attempt to turn websites to "web snippet producers" that can only be monetized via google or die. It's web feudalism.
The rules in AMP designed to speed performance are extensive.
Lots of things you can do in HTML - linked style sheets, synchronous third party java-script and ad frameworks etc etc are heavily restricted. There are size limits even on the inline CSS I think or even on the separate web worker javascript even animations are restricted so they can be accelerated.
The speed increase is not just because of preload. Turn on dev tools and look at network round trips / page size / CPU usage on an AMP vs nonAMP page.
Thanks for the downvote just because you don't want people to know the truth: all those "parts of the standard" that "make pages faster"? Don't do much at all. Bother to read TFA please - the average AMP page still loads in roughly 8.5 seconds on normal 3G. What makes them seem "fast" is Google preloading their content on the search results page and using Google's CDN to serve what remains.
YOU are spreading misinformation and one might ask why.
> That is incredibly monopolistic behavior because it can't be reproduced any other way.
Monopolistic would be Google making publishers integrate directly with them to enable prerendering like Apple News or Facebook Instant Articles. AMP pages can and are consumed by link aggregators other than Google, so they are very specifically not abusing their monopoly by telling publishers to use AMP.
Also Bing, Yahoo, Baidu, Yandex, and every other link aggregator (unlike Apple News or FBIA, which were designed for the same purpose). What part of that don't you understand?
Ignore this guy - he's just trolling I think. AMP can be loaded (and preloaded) by anyone who wants to. You can have your browser do preloads if you want.
The last thread had some good illustrations comparing media sites non-AMP pages (the bloat from ads / javascript / etc was INCREDIBLE) to AMP pages.
Google puts a little icon next to amp pages at least some of the time. These pages usually load VERY quickly in my experience - somehow whatever AMP/Google is doing results in less bloated pages on these AMP pages.
I wouldn't be surprised if users start naturally gravitating to these pages for the better experience. I know I have sometimes just because I know the page is not going to trap me on their site if they are AMP. I can usually get back to search results with AMP, where other sites do a weird thing where they pop up a registration page in front, then even if you fight through that you have to fight through some registration redirects to get back.
I wish google would push down news sites I don't have memberships too though - banging on paywalls is annoying - I pay for a few sites already -> be great to have those be the ones surfaced most often.