Comment by falcolas
6 years ago
How about just https://9to5google.com/2020/02/03/alphabet-q4-2019-earnings/ ?
No amp required, under 1 second to display content. I will say that it's a bit beefy at 5mb total, though the AMP site loads the same amount.
You complained that it was hosted on Google specifically. I tested that Chrome specifically copies the canonical URL and not the location bar URL when I share that AMP page, which doesn't fit your narrative.
Also, the reason the AMP page is faster is that it prerenders above the fold from a SERP, not due to total page weight.
AMP is, hosting aside, a problematic project when it comes to Google's business ethics.
And the differences in rendering speed were negligible, to my eyes. IIRC from the dev tools, it was about 1/10th of a second difference to get readable content.
AMP is basically gobbling up other contributor’s content and shamelessly profits at the expense of the content owner. As an end user I also don’t like amp. Im on duckduckgo now
> And the differences in rendering speed were negligible, to my eyes
Reread my previous post. You didn't load it from a SERP. That's what AMP is useful for, instant loading from link aggregators.
> AMP is, hosting aside, a problematic project when it comes to Google's business ethics.
How, especially considering that Google's browser does not share AMP URLs? Is RSS a problematic project? How about GTFS or microdata? All three give the user a better experience at the expense of the publisher.
2 replies →