[GuB-42]

> 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.

[roblabla]

> 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-3b424...

[joshuamorton]

> 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!

This is not feasible in a security conscious way. Preloading leaks metadata (at a minimum things like IP address, and probably much more for a useful implementation) to third party hosts without any user interaction.

Even without preloading, as I understand it, amp is still faster than your "average" site since it enforces decent performance hygiene. Yes, performance conscious owners can create slightly faster sites, but most don't. The 0.0s load times for preloaded sites and potential to cache is just butter for an end user.

[I work at Google but have nothing to do with AMP].

[miohtama]

It is cheaper just to use AMP than hiring a senior web developer to fix a website stuffed with crap.

[Angostura]

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.