Despite understanding and largely agreeing with the concerns against AMP Cache that get discussed any time an AMP article gets posted on HN, I cannot stress enough on how relieved I feel to see the lightning icon next to a mobile search result, especially on my now aging phone.
Most content websites have become such a massive crapfest of ad-bloat, bad UX, huge page sizes and general usability hell that it's nigh impossible that I'd be able to reach the actual content of a non AMP site in the first 5-10 seconds of clicking on its link. (On my phone that's an additional 1-2 seconds for registering the tap, and 1-2 seconds for navigating to the browser)
My click-throughs to non AMP websites have reduced considerably.
So say what you may, AMP (or FB Instant or its ilk) will prosper until the mobile web experience stops being so crappy.
(Edit: About a decade ago, when mobile browsers were in their infancy and data plans were slow and limited, I distinctly remember using Opera Mini for mobile browsing because it used to pre-render pages on the server and send a very light payload to the phone. This saved you both data costs and made mobile browsing even realistically possible)
Personally I don't think the idea behind AMP is bad. But the implementation is dangerous as it artificially fragments the web. I guess fewer would oppose AMP if google made some machine verifiable guidelines for "light" webpages that would earn them this "icon". Linked from the "fat" page by some "link" meta tag.
The crazy thing is that content websites insist they need dozens of ad and analytics libraries on every page because otherwise, how would they monetize their site? So, they create a crappy experience, realize it's crappy, then switch to AMP, getting rid of all the libraries they supposedly "needed". They could just remove the cruft themselves and cut out the middleman.
> Most content websites have become such a massive crapfest of ad-bloat, bad UX, huge page sizes and general usability hell that it's nigh impossible that I'd be able to reach the actual content of a non AMP site in the first 5-10 seconds of clicking on its link.
Or just use Firefox for Android with uBlock extension and Reader Mode. No, it's not perfect but doesn't require parallel internet (Google's) to function.
I hope AMP meets the same fate as other Google's "works best in chrome" techniques such as PNaCl. Maybe we'll get something standardized out of it like PNaCl was replaced with WebAssembly?
I think that the fact AMP sites are faster than the average site is exactly what makes it so dangerous. Obviously there are plenty of sites out there that aren't bloated up with javascript and ads, but Google doesn't offer any way to identify that in the search results. The only reliable indicator of site speed is the Google AMP Cache logo. So naturally users will consciously or otherwise favour clicking results with the Google AMP logo. That drives more traffic to those sites, improves their search ranking etc. A non-GoogleAMPCache site could be incredibly lean and fast but it will still lose out to the Google AMP Cache hosted sites in terms of traffic and ranking. The only way to compete is to use Google's proprietary markup standard and cede hosting of your site to Google.
I completely agree. As a programmer, I don't like it. As a user, I love it. I'm often on a crappy data connection or on an older device, and waiting for non-AMP pages to load is ridiculous. I'd usually choose the 10th search result over the 1st if the 10th is the first AMP one. (Provided that it looks suitable for whatever I was Googling.) It's that significant of an effect.
It would go a long way to the reform of the mobile web if they got rid of all the "pop-in" windows that are hard (and sometimes impossible) to dismiss.
Pop-ins are annoying on the desktop, but close to catastrophic on mobile.
You aren't addressing the issue people have with AMP though. There's no reason Google couldn't boost site rankings and provide the little logo to compliant sitea and still allow the sites to host under their own domain.
I just use a content blocker to prevent JS, CSS, fonts, and images on all websites by default. Then if I care about the site, I can change permissions.
Medium.com now loads so fast, as well as other bloated publishers and newspapers. It's amazing how many tabs I can open, and I use so little bandwidth.
I end using my phone's screen reader usually, so I don't care about appearance. Just need good stories in the <html> :)
Same here. I can load sites with AMP (or its competitors) faster on my low-end to mid-range phones fine, and on a metered Internet connection.
As much as I don't like it on a webmaster / blogger perspective, it does help a lot in getting a wider audience than by only offering a "responsive theme".
The author seems to completely misunderstand the point of AMP. It was never designed or created for dynamic, interactive content, especially e-commerce.
This is like complaining that a hammer is bad for driving screws.
There are many people out there demanding their eCommerce websites "get on AMP" ASAP. The author is performing a valuable service to employees of such people.
Doesn't eBay use AMP? The issue is how you use it. I believe eBay uses it for the entry product page, and then any subsequent hit goes to the website itself.
I don't think its that. Its that AMP is borderline an anti-trust. But the point is, even with the speed and possible ranking boost, does it boost conversions? More traffic without conversions generally does not help an e-commerce site.
Conceptually I hate AMP. I wish they would just have guidelines for fast load times, and award better rank and a lightening badge next to pages that are adhering to those guidelines. I HATE that Google restricts design, re-formats pages, and serves your content.
That said, AMP clearly isn't for eCommerce. You want dynamic, personalized content for eCommerce. Recommendations based on past pages visited, or search terms, or your location... It's not just about fast loading pages.
Some eCommerce may fear that their sales will suffer if someone else gets a page that's in AMP and then Google's new rankings put that page over their own... But that's no reason to convert your site to AMP. It's a good reason to build out landing pages specific for search terms, do paid advertising around keywords, and just generally market your products / site.
Generally speaking, people who come in to product pages straight from Google are just doing price comparison anyway -- it's just a step in the decision journey, but if you've done a proper job of marketing your business, customers that buy tend to go straight to your site and do a search using your own search tools.
This tech may seem trivial to broadband users, but has demonstrated itself to be effective in mobile-heavy, low-bandwidth markets (ref India & myntra.com)
So AMP is not even faster than other mobile pages without the google CDN? A pity so many prefer something like AMP to generally stripping down their sites. Get rid of JS unless absolutely necessary, compress/remove images, remove all this ad and bloat, and your page, whatever category it fits in, will load blazyingly fast. What happened to good old sole HTML and CSS, served statically or server-generated for lightning speed?
It's not only not faster but it's often slower — AMP puts 100KB of render-blocking JavaScript into the critical path. If you can render a page with less than that, you're likely to beat it, which I see regularly on iOS.
Breaking down a few of the concerns in this article:
> With AMP [chat applications] cannot be used
True currently. There are no chat application amp extensions, yet. This could change in the future. Vendors interested in implementing one for AMP should get involved at http://github.com/ampproject/amphtml
> AMP does not have any markup specific to checkouts
Most web pages move from shopping cart to payment by changing URLs. This would work just fine with an AMP page. There is in fact at least one vendor who has integrated payments with AMP already: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-acc...
> They really do not support a logged in state, or user preferences. Things like recommended products, or recently viewed products will not work with an AMP page. None of the personalization aspects like “Hi, Lesley” are done with AMP.
Alternatively, vendors can submit a configuration to the AMP project which is just a few lines of JSON, then the vendor will be supported more directly.
> Ad Revenue is Decreased
The link is to a single article from a year ago. There are many studies pointing to the opposite effect as well.
The author tries to use a google.com/amp URL, but these redirect when not coming from a search click. Much easier is to take the CDN amp URL, which is served the same way:
The AMP page is 60% smaller and hits the load event in 40% less time. However "loaded" is a funny term in the world of javascript driven websites and needs to be looked at more carefully.
I suspect that the author's referenced tool is reporting "fully loaded time" as the time that the last network event ended. AMP pages intentionally delay loading images below the fold to prioritize visible content. This results in some images loading later without impacting the user experience. For example, as I scrolled in the AMP page, the "Finish" time would move ahead to a new time as new images were loaded. With events like analytics triggers, looking at the time the last network event finished is typically a misleading metric and won't work correctly with most amp documents.
If you load filmstrips in Chrome's Performance Tab, you can see this more clearly. Filmstrips display what the page looked like at snapshots in time after loading starts. For my quick test with network throttling, the non-AMP page takes a little over 6s to finish reaching it's final state and the AMP page takes about 2.2s. So AMP here is nearly 3x faster as the user would perceive it on similar connection speed.
I appreciate your optimism, but my read is that current Google management is very heavily invested in this idea and will fight hard before they give it up.
In addition AMP has penetrated other platforms, like Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest.
The cat is out of the bag, and it will not be easy to put it back.
>I imagine it will likely be shelved soon either by lawsuit or just by Google's closing it down
AMP isn't going anywhere so don't get your hopes up. But, by all means I encourage you to initiate a lawsuit if only to see you fleeced by a lawyer for your litigious attitude.
Also, the article you linked to is so full of inaccuracies that it's impossible to take it seriously.
I cannot see AMP remaining viable in the long run. I think there is going to be a lot of push back or non adoption because the walled garden is just a way to track users and advertise to them better.
What do you say about blogs? I understand that AMP is harmful to e-commerce based websites but what about blogs that are totally based on content and Google ads? How does it impact them?
[+] [-] kinkrtyavimoodh|8 years ago|reply
Most content websites have become such a massive crapfest of ad-bloat, bad UX, huge page sizes and general usability hell that it's nigh impossible that I'd be able to reach the actual content of a non AMP site in the first 5-10 seconds of clicking on its link. (On my phone that's an additional 1-2 seconds for registering the tap, and 1-2 seconds for navigating to the browser)
My click-throughs to non AMP websites have reduced considerably.
So say what you may, AMP (or FB Instant or its ilk) will prosper until the mobile web experience stops being so crappy.
(Edit: About a decade ago, when mobile browsers were in their infancy and data plans were slow and limited, I distinctly remember using Opera Mini for mobile browsing because it used to pre-render pages on the server and send a very light payload to the phone. This saved you both data costs and made mobile browsing even realistically possible)
[+] [-] dividuum|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dimal|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hdhzy|8 years ago|reply
Or just use Firefox for Android with uBlock extension and Reader Mode. No, it's not perfect but doesn't require parallel internet (Google's) to function.
I hope AMP meets the same fate as other Google's "works best in chrome" techniques such as PNaCl. Maybe we'll get something standardized out of it like PNaCl was replaced with WebAssembly?
[+] [-] sbov|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anon1385|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] owenversteeg|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PaulHoule|8 years ago|reply
Pop-ins are annoying on the desktop, but close to catastrophic on mobile.
[+] [-] JetSpiegel|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colordrops|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deftturtle|8 years ago|reply
Medium.com now loads so fast, as well as other bloated publishers and newspapers. It's amazing how many tabs I can open, and I use so little bandwidth.
I end using my phone's screen reader usually, so I don't care about appearance. Just need good stories in the <html> :)
[+] [-] techmagus|8 years ago|reply
As much as I don't like it on a webmaster / blogger perspective, it does help a lot in getting a wider audience than by only offering a "responsive theme".
[+] [-] executesorder66|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ucaetano|8 years ago|reply
This is like complaining that a hammer is bad for driving screws.
[+] [-] thefalcon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] durgiston|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ehsankia|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donohoe|8 years ago|reply
That was true. But its not true any more.
Google is now pushing AMP for pages like that.
[+] [-] themaveness|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tyingq|8 years ago|reply
Whatever other benefits it brings are solely for the purpose of pitching it.
[+] [-] dbg31415|8 years ago|reply
That said, AMP clearly isn't for eCommerce. You want dynamic, personalized content for eCommerce. Recommendations based on past pages visited, or search terms, or your location... It's not just about fast loading pages.
Some eCommerce may fear that their sales will suffer if someone else gets a page that's in AMP and then Google's new rankings put that page over their own... But that's no reason to convert your site to AMP. It's a good reason to build out landing pages specific for search terms, do paid advertising around keywords, and just generally market your products / site.
Generally speaking, people who come in to product pages straight from Google are just doing price comparison anyway -- it's just a step in the decision journey, but if you've done a proper job of marketing your business, customers that buy tend to go straight to your site and do a search using your own search tools.
[+] [-] roneythomas6|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andy_ppp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] roneythomas6|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cramforce|8 years ago|reply
…and similarly the rest of the article seems badly researched.
[+] [-] Navarr|8 years ago|reply
Perhaps, author, because of how those pages are painted
[+] [-] benmarks|8 years ago|reply
This tech may seem trivial to broadband users, but has demonstrated itself to be effective in mobile-heavy, low-bandwidth markets (ref India & myntra.com)
[+] [-] linopolus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acdha|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JoshMnem|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gregable|8 years ago|reply
> With AMP [chat applications] cannot be used
True currently. There are no chat application amp extensions, yet. This could change in the future. Vendors interested in implementing one for AMP should get involved at http://github.com/ampproject/amphtml
> AMP does not have any markup specific to checkouts
Most web pages move from shopping cart to payment by changing URLs. This would work just fine with an AMP page. There is in fact at least one vendor who has integrated payments with AMP already: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-acc...
Also take a look at https://ampbyexample.com/advanced/payments_in_amp/
> AMP does not allow for use of forms
See https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-for...
> They really do not support a logged in state, or user preferences. Things like recommended products, or recently viewed products will not work with an AMP page. None of the personalization aspects like “Hi, Lesley” are done with AMP.
See the (perhaps poorly named) https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-lis... This supports loading content specific to the user, even on a cached amp document.
> if search and filtering are a large part of your site’s mobile navigation, AMP will be useless.
This is exactly what amp-bind was built for: https://ampbyexample.com/components/amp-bind/
> Google Analytics is not supported on AMP
Google Analytics is fully supported in AMP. Here's the Google Analytics support page: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...
> If you use a different suite of tracking such as Piwik or kissmetrics, they will not work with AMP.
There is a large list of analytics vendors that have direct support here: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/guides/analytics/analytics-v...
Other vendors can be added with a small amount of configuration. Here's a guide for Piwik, for example: https://www.elftronix.com/guide-to-using-piwik-analytics-wit...
Alternatively, vendors can submit a configuration to the AMP project which is just a few lines of JSON, then the vendor will be supported more directly.
> Ad Revenue is Decreased
The link is to a single article from a year ago. There are many studies pointing to the opposite effect as well.
> A/B testing is not supported
See https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-exp...
> Performance
I'm not sure what URLs the author used, but I tried to find a similar overstock recliner page that might be the right one. I found:
https://www.overstock.com/Home-Garden/Recliners/Leather,/mat...
The author tries to use a google.com/amp URL, but these redirect when not coming from a search click. Much easier is to take the CDN amp URL, which is served the same way:
https://cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.overstock.com/Home-Garden...
I loaded both of these in Chrome, simulated a mobile device, network tab, and throttling with Fast 3G. Here were my results:
* non-AMP: 42 requests, 1.1 MB transferred, Finish: 10.3s, DomContentLoad: 3.38s, Load: 9.52s
* AMP: 35 requests, 408 KB transferred, Finish 5.87s, DomContentLoaded 1.28s, Load: 5.88s
The AMP page is 60% smaller and hits the load event in 40% less time. However "loaded" is a funny term in the world of javascript driven websites and needs to be looked at more carefully.
I suspect that the author's referenced tool is reporting "fully loaded time" as the time that the last network event ended. AMP pages intentionally delay loading images below the fold to prioritize visible content. This results in some images loading later without impacting the user experience. For example, as I scrolled in the AMP page, the "Finish" time would move ahead to a new time as new images were loaded. With events like analytics triggers, looking at the time the last network event finished is typically a misleading metric and won't work correctly with most amp documents.
If you load filmstrips in Chrome's Performance Tab, you can see this more clearly. Filmstrips display what the page looked like at snapshots in time after loading starts. For my quick test with network throttling, the non-AMP page takes a little over 6s to finish reaching it's final state and the AMP page takes about 2.2s. So AMP here is nearly 3x faster as the user would perceive it on similar connection speed.
[+] [-] k__|8 years ago|reply
It either doesn't load or goes back to the previous page after a few seconds.
[+] [-] taytus|8 years ago|reply
AMP has limitations, like any piece of technology. Once you understand the limitations you should be able to plan your attack accordingly.
We are pre-launch but if you want early access and test our automatic generator please email me.
[+] [-] nouveau0|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droopybuns|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] themaveness|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akras14|8 years ago|reply
In addition AMP has penetrated other platforms, like Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest.
The cat is out of the bag, and it will not be easy to put it back.
[+] [-] bitmapbrother|8 years ago|reply
AMP isn't going anywhere so don't get your hopes up. But, by all means I encourage you to initiate a lawsuit if only to see you fleeced by a lawyer for your litigious attitude.
Also, the article you linked to is so full of inaccuracies that it's impossible to take it seriously.
[+] [-] TekMol|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aritali|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] denisehilton|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] w00bl3ywook|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Businessmen|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] w00bl3ywook|8 years ago|reply