18 ms·

I hate AMP. It is just a tech to give google more control. Anything to helps kill it off is a good thing. It is possible to create pages that load fast on mobil

by wilt 6y ago

I hate AMP. It is just a tech to give google more control. Anything to helps kill it off is a good thing. It is possible to create pages that load fast on mobile without it.

ec109685 6y ago
Not as fast AMP given a website like google can’t safely preload and prerender a normal website’s content.
dheera 6y ago
Yeah but sometimes it gets around paywalls. free non-AMP >> free AMP >> paywalled non-AMP
plasma 6y ago
Reddit's AMP is terrible, I wish I could opt-out.
- ffpip 6y ago
  Reddit's AMP implementation makes me think they genuinely stopped giving a fuck about users.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    They must have calculated they can't survive at their current ad impression rates, hence the forcing people onto their app at literally any cost these days. It wouldn't be as much of a problem if the app actually worked well, but it doesn't
    - Google234 6y ago
      Are there more ads on the app?
      - ffpip 6y ago
        They push awards and coins heavily on the app. Like you get constant prompts to spend money on fake karma, digital coins and stuff
      - ceejayoz 6y ago
        More ad tracking too, I suspect. I'd imagine Reddit's audience is fairly heavy on ad/privacy blocking; can't do that in the app.
      - aitchnyu 6y ago
        With autoplaying video with sound, I have to unpause my music after an ad. On the plus side, one brand (AFAICT) enabled comment section on their ad.
- josefx 6y ago
  old.reddit.com? I think they also have an option for it when you are logged in.
  - marakv2 6y ago
    And i.reddit.com for mobile
t-writescode 6y ago
_anything_ ? That's a scary precedent you've given there. You want a poorly-written law that can be used and abused to disallow lots of other websites, including archive.org (it's easy enough to imagine) to get rid of AMP? Be careful what you wish for.
GuB-42 6y ago
> It is possible to create pages that load fast on mobile without it. Sure, except few people do. And Google seized the opportunity here. Most of the times, the AMP site is faster, there is real value added for the end user, and Google used that positive experience to sneak in their stuff. It would never have happened if sites were fast to begin with. Like I always say about AMP, there are two parts to it: some sort of enforced guidelines that ensure your pages are fast. This is the good part. And there is Google stuff. But you know what, AMP is open source, so take the code, strip off the Google parts and you have a website that is even faster, and independent. That's something I've never seen done, and yet, that's probably the best for the end user. Instead, most website owners who complain about AMP do it for the "wrong" reasons. They want to load up their site with 10 different trackers, popups and other annoyances. They don't care about your privacy or going through Google servers, in fact, they most likely already have Google tracking and ads enabled in their non-AMP site. That's the saddest part, because of years of laziness and overzealous marketing, AMP is actually good for users.
- Angostura 6y ago
  Google could have incentivised fast loading mobile pages just fine without AMP, by promoting fast pages in search results, or perhaps putting a red 'Slow' tag in search results next to slow pages. Oddly, they didn't do that.
- roblabla 6y ago
  > Most of the times, the AMP site is faster Except AMP sites usually aren't faster. They just get preloaded[0]. If google preloaded non-AMP sites (which is technically feasible, there has been browser extensions doing this since ages ago), they too would load "faster", fancy that! There's no good part to AMP. It's bullshit that doesn't really work. Sure in absolute metrics, your website might be "faster" simply by following AMP's rule, but it'll still usually be way too slow without google's cheats. You know what works to make websites load faster? Not including megabytes of javascript, properly configuring your server to compress the data, keeping images at a reasonable resolution, and preferably under the fold. The only thing AMP was ever good for is give Google a convenient excuse to seize control of content distribution, giving them even more insight on users' browsing habits and whatnot. And golly did it work. [0]: https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424031047 https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424...
random5634 6y ago
I’ve used amp and non amp links. Even though folks could make non amp faster it simply isn’t. The difference is night and day. The amp hate on HN is mostly non user driven I think - amp is NOTICEABLY faster / lighter and few users care about their URL bar - chrome is already simplifying that as well for all sites

by wilt 6y ago

I hate AMP. It is just a tech to give google more control. Anything to helps kill it off is a good thing. It is possible to create pages that load fast on mobile without it.

ec109685 6y ago

Not as fast AMP given a website like google can’t safely preload and prerender a normal website’s content.

dheera 6y ago

Yeah but sometimes it gets around paywalls. free non-AMP >> free AMP >> paywalled non-AMP

plasma 6y ago

Reddit's AMP is terrible, I wish I could opt-out.

ffpip 6y ago
Reddit's AMP implementation makes me think they genuinely stopped giving a fuck about users.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  They must have calculated they can't survive at their current ad impression rates, hence the forcing people onto their app at literally any cost these days. It wouldn't be as much of a problem if the app actually worked well, but it doesn't
  - Google234 6y ago
    Are there more ads on the app?
    - ffpip 6y ago
      They push awards and coins heavily on the app. Like you get constant prompts to spend money on fake karma, digital coins and stuff
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      More ad tracking too, I suspect. I'd imagine Reddit's audience is fairly heavy on ad/privacy blocking; can't do that in the app.
    - aitchnyu 6y ago
      With autoplaying video with sound, I have to unpause my music after an ad. On the plus side, one brand (AFAICT) enabled comment section on their ad.
josefx 6y ago
old.reddit.com? I think they also have an option for it when you are logged in.
- marakv2 6y ago
  And i.reddit.com for mobile

t-writescode 6y ago

_anything_ ? That's a scary precedent you've given there. You want a poorly-written law that can be used and abused to disallow lots of other websites, including archive.org (it's easy enough to imagine) to get rid of AMP? Be careful what you wish for.

GuB-42 6y ago

> It is possible to create pages that load fast on mobile without it. Sure, except few people do. And Google seized the opportunity here. Most of the times, the AMP site is faster, there is real value added for the end user, and Google used that positive experience to sneak in their stuff. It would never have happened if sites were fast to begin with. Like I always say about AMP, there are two parts to it: some sort of enforced guidelines that ensure your pages are fast. This is the good part. And there is Google stuff. But you know what, AMP is open source, so take the code, strip off the Google parts and you have a website that is even faster, and independent. That's something I've never seen done, and yet, that's probably the best for the end user. Instead, most website owners who complain about AMP do it for the "wrong" reasons. They want to load up their site with 10 different trackers, popups and other annoyances. They don't care about your privacy or going through Google servers, in fact, they most likely already have Google tracking and ads enabled in their non-AMP site. That's the saddest part, because of years of laziness and overzealous marketing, AMP is actually good for users.

Angostura 6y ago
Google could have incentivised fast loading mobile pages just fine without AMP, by promoting fast pages in search results, or perhaps putting a red 'Slow' tag in search results next to slow pages. Oddly, they didn't do that.
roblabla 6y ago
> Most of the times, the AMP site is faster Except AMP sites usually aren't faster. They just get preloaded[0]. If google preloaded non-AMP sites (which is technically feasible, there has been browser extensions doing this since ages ago), they too would load "faster", fancy that! There's no good part to AMP. It's bullshit that doesn't really work. Sure in absolute metrics, your website might be "faster" simply by following AMP's rule, but it'll still usually be way too slow without google's cheats. You know what works to make websites load faster? Not including megabytes of javascript, properly configuring your server to compress the data, keeping images at a reasonable resolution, and preferably under the fold. The only thing AMP was ever good for is give Google a convenient excuse to seize control of content distribution, giving them even more insight on users' browsing habits and whatnot. And golly did it work. [0]: https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424031047 https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424...

random5634 6y ago

I’ve used amp and non amp links. Even though folks could make non amp faster it simply isn’t. The difference is night and day. The amp hate on HN is mostly non user driven I think - amp is NOTICEABLY faster / lighter and few users care about their URL bar - chrome is already simplifying that as well for all sites