[technion]

The thing about AMP is that it takes work. You cannot just install an AMP plugin and expect your existing website to suddenly serve AMP.

However, with certain CMS's, that's exactly how things are marketed. So what we're seeing is people go off and buy themes or whatever to make their website look the way they want, then they install some plugin and say "done". And then they are taken by surprise when, on mobile, their site either doesn't load at all, or looks nothing like the "premium theme" they paid for.

FWIW, I'm glad I moved my blog to AMP. I feel like it loads pretty well instantly on and I feel somewhat future proofed.

Would I encourage a less technical user to go through this? Not really.

Also, I wish Google would work better with integrating their own tooling. Getting lower scores on Google Pagespeed after enabling AMP because of the AMP CDN configuration is somewhat absurd.

[detaro]

The question then of course is: why is the non-AMP version of your blog slower, and could you have improved that with the same effort? Or is it just that people coming there via Google get Googles CDN which is faster?

[technion]

The easy answer is that AMP forces you to do things like always declaring image height and width. And yes I could do that without AMP, but the moment you're not forced to do something, the path of least resistance is to not bother.

I certainly never would never have bothered setting up a build process to inline CSS previously.

[ec109685]

AMP preloads the content before you click, which your own web site can't compete with.

[detaro]

from Google results, yes. That's only one specific (but for many admittedly important) situation, and sounds more like "AMP because that's the hoop Google has you jump through to get preloading", not "AMP because it makes the site faster".

[Angostura]

> I feel somewhat future proofed.

Until Google deprecates it in July.