21–30 of 130 posts
Slightly off topic, but does anyone else have trouble loading AMP pages on their iPhone Safari browser? Almost any AMP page I try to load is blank with a banner on top containing the address of the page, and then my only solution is to load the desktop version to see the page.
Slightly off topic, but does anyone else have trouble loading AMP pages on their iPhone Safari browser? Almost any AMP page I try to load is blank with a banner on top containing the address of the page, and then my only solution is to load the desktop version to see the page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AMP is yet another good idea Can you explain why AMP is a good idea? I still don't really understand it, I'm afraid.
Serving everything from one hostname means (i) you don't get 20 DNS lookups to serve a page, one of which might hang up for 5 seconds; (ii) you can use a protocol like http/2 to avoid TCP and SSL renegotiations; (iii) you can stop people from loading up pages with 20MB of Javascript. There is no doubt that AMP is fast. The other angle is how it reinforces Google's position for advertising, analytics, search, video an…
This post seems to conflate two ideas (1) AMP being an insufficient implementation (update-ping not working, and that being an awkward pattern anyways) and (2) AMP being actively harmful to the web ecosystem in principle. (1) Comments on the implementation I don't know nearly enough to contest. It's a new technology, and will take a lot of changes in and out of Google to get right. It's also early days - continue rai…
With such statement, it would be appropriate you disclose up front that your employer is Google[1].
Slightly off topic, but does anyone else have trouble loading AMP pages on their iPhone Safari browser? Almost any AMP page I try to load is blank with a banner on top containing the address of the page, and then my only solution is to load the desktop version to see the page.
This post seems to conflate two ideas (1) AMP being an insufficient implementation (update-ping not working, and that being an awkward pattern anyways) and (2) AMP being actively harmful to the web ecosystem in principle. (1) Comments on the implementation I don't know nearly enough to contest. It's a new technology, and will take a lot of changes in and out of Google to get right. It's also early days - continue rai…
> AMP to me is an answer to that With such statement, it would be appropriate you disclose up front that your employer is Google[1]. [1] http://www.thelowlyprogrammer.com/
1. They don't have to hijack the URL. I understand the technical reasons for this, but it's unforgivable.
2. Browsers can provide an easy way to view the original/full content.
3. Users can easily disable AMP in their browser if they want.
I can't help but feel AMP is a step in the wrong direction and was quite possibly a disingenuous play from Google from the get-go. URL highjacking is harmful for the web and I can't for the life of me understand how this project could get past the initial stages without that drawback being understood.
AMP is yet another good idea that Google didn't test properly or think through. As far as I can see, you can't click through to the actual page from an AMP page, which sucks if you want to share the link or something.
Perhaps who ever came up with it, an engineer, had some good ideas, and then when Google executives took a look they said wonderful here is an opportunity to: - Cut off third party ad networks - Reduce bounce rates from Google.com to outside sites
> Reducing bounce rates that are due to slow pagespeed is probably a good thing!
If people would do that there would be no need for AMP. The whole concept is mostly "Google tells people their webpages suck and puts them into a cage where they can guarantee that they don't suck".