Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on HN defend AMP. We all hate it. It's a pox on the modern web.



Depends on who you mean by "we", people working directly on implementing/supporting AMP? Anti-google crowd? Sure, you're probably right.

But as someone who's just an end user, and not working on frontend development who likes AMP, I don't bother commenting when the opinion is extremely skewed to one side.

I love AMP. The website loads faster, feels a lot snappier, and is overall positive experience for me. That's what I care about. I don't care how it got to that point, I want usable and fast loading website - and AMP gives me that.

Can this be speed and mobile friendliness be implemented without AMP? Yes. Is it implemented without AMP? Very rarely.

Of course there's the argument with google trying to get a tighter grip on web and while that is not a good thing the truth is that I, and huge majority of average consumers, just don't care if it means better results for me.


I highly doubt that you are just the "end user" you claim to be, otherwise you wouldn't be here, having this discussion. But let's assume that you are.

>Of course there's the argument with google trying to get a tighter grip on web and while that is not a good thing the truth is that I, and huge majority of average consumers, just don't care if it means better results for me.

What you are describing is the very common mix of "tragedy of the commons" + "pure utilitarianism". The future would be vastly better if everyone made a small sacrifice now, but each individual action counts for so little that you make the selfish but rational choice of letting others do the small sacrifice.

Maybe your page loads faster now, but this is happening by risking the destruction of the very environment that makes such pages worth reading (independent journalism, freedom from corporate control, etc.). In the long run, it means worse results for you, but your individual sacrifice is unlikely to have any effect. You feel selfish, so you rationalize a story where you are just the "common person" doing what makes sense.

The fact that we have a civilization is proof that there are ways out of this deadlock. For a long time, the answer was religion. We need something for the XXI century to play that role, i.e. making people think not only as individuals but also members of an entire species, ecosystem, etc.

Meanwhile, what you are saying amounts to: "fuck you, I got mine".


Don't forget that they don't even actually load faster, but rather support the illusion of such because Google lazy-loads a few of them in the background while you're reading through the search results. Which honestly has some merits of its own, though it's a kick in the dick for metered data.


>I don't care how it got to that point

>just don't care if it means better results for me.

That's part of the issue though, isn't it? Privacy advocates on here and elsewhere point out frequently that part of the problem is that people don't care enough. There's a similar dynamic in this case.


I've defended it in the past when it used to be faster (combined with pre-loading) than most websites, on mobile. Nowadays, it should be quite easy to optimize a website enough to be faster than the AMP version, but it seems not many websites are even trying…


Not true. Sites can’t safely preload and pre render non-amp pages, so non-amp pages will never be as fast as amp pages.


What websites need to not only regularly preload+prerender other webpages but also webpages outside their trustzone? And when does the performance of half a millisecond matter?


Latency to remote servers isn’t half a millisecond. A click off from google would normally take a second or two to render and be much worse at the p95 page load time.

With AMP, this is cut down to tens of milliseconds.


> A click off from google would normally take a second or two to render

The question isn't what do people normally do. The question is what's possible without Google's help. 200ms click-to-render is not difficult.

Google can get that down to 20ms or whatever with AMP, but for 99.999% of sites, Google's monopoly position is not the thing holding you back from faster loads.


Not in my experience; AMP has no latency benefit. Additionally, this doesn't really answer the question other than "Google needs this". What other websites need to do AMP on their end?


I'm pretty sure there were multiple comments about being able to make an AMP-alternative with regular HTML that's just as fast from the very first AMP-related post on HN. It may even have been the top comment for some of the first posts.


I love AMP pages. They load fast and get me in and out of content quickly.


As a mobile web user, I love AMP. Pages load instantly. I can and do click through multiple articles on the same topic before finding one that is the highest quality because the time cost of clicking through is nearly zero.

Google's, Bing's, Baidu's, etc.'s users by and large also love AMP or else they wouldn't spend the money on the infrastructure.


> I don't think I've ever seen anyone on HN defend AMP

I present to you AMP tech lead: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=cramforce



Not sure why anyone would downvote me. In the linked comment this user says that Google isn't nearly agile enough for the AMP team to respond to suggestions - or did I misread what I linked?




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: