Indeed. Facebook does this. It deanonymizes Facebook news feed visitors to every third party whose links appear on their news feed. You consider this a better approach? In addition to losing in privacy, it loses in speed because it doesn't prerender the page, and it doesn't know enough to load just the resources needed to render above the fold.
I don't consider either necessary. Clicking a link and then loading the page works just fine for the web.
Creating a custom HTML fork that puts more pressure on limited publisher dev teams to end up with another copy o the site (and now SSR) is a worse approach than placing loading speed into search results ranking and letting sites optimize the site for everyone with a browser.
> Clicking a link and then loading the page works just fine for the web.
No, it doesn't. If it did, there would be no need for Facebook Instant Articles, Apple News, or their successor, AMP.
> Creating a custom HTML fork that puts more pressure on limited publisher dev teams to end up with another copy o the site
They're already doing this with Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News. Imagine if they had to do separate integrations with Bing, Google, Yahoo! Japan, Baidu, and any future link aggregators. AMP lets them publish one page and support all of them.
No, none of this is needed. Make speed a factor in search results and sites get faster. The single HTML version will get faster for everyone on every device, not just mobile sites from certain platforms.
Facebook IA and Apple News are also attempts to control ads and data, just like AMP. They're all bad for publishers. IA and AN have both failed in providing anywhere near the benefits and revenue they promised. AMP only survives because it's compatible with existing ads served by Google's ad network and given higher placement in their search results.
It's rather amazing how Google is specifically offering the solution to a problem caused by their own adtech software.
> No, none of this is needed. Make speed a factor in search results and sites get faster.
You can't get faster than prerendered, which is what Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles offer, which AMP is the open alternative to.
> AMP only survives because it's compatible with existing ads served by Google's ad network and given higher placement in their search results.
If that's the case, why does Bing use it?
> It's rather amazing how Google is specifically offering the solution to a problem caused by their own adtech software.
What's rather amazing is that after having repeatedly heard the problem that AMP solves (instant loading pages), you continue to straw man what it solves and what technologies it competes with.
> Facebook IA and Apple News are also attempts to control ads and data, just like AMP. They're all bad for publishers.
Yet only AMP gets the rabid hate. Why is that? AMP is essentially RSS items with support for above the fold prerendering, interactivity, and monetization. You probably love RSS, even though it is even worse for publishers. Why?
Google's entire reason for not using the browser preload function is is violates the users privacy - the site gets to know the users cookies and IP even if they never end up visiting.
It's a legit excuse, but not enough if a privacy leak in my opinion to slow down everyone's browsing substantially.