Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 247 posts

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#101

Post by tiffanyh »

djrogers wrote: post #85
tiffanyh wrote: post #42

There's a lot of hate going on in this thread towards Google ... maybe unfairly. Keep in mind, a huge reason why Google created AMP is because website bloat has gotten out of control. It's not uncommon for a simply Wordpress blog to be 4MB in size and have 70 requested objects to fetch. I live in a geography that has LTE and web site are painfully slow to load on mobile devices. I can't even imagine what the Internet…

If google thinks page bloat and loading speed are a problem, they could have come up with a set of recommendations (likely most of the ones in AMP) and use PageRank to promote websites that adhere to those standards. Instead, they created a way to hijack the mobile web and become the de facto content presenter for any publisher who doesn't want to be punished by Google.

In case your not aware, since 2010 Google has in fact PageRanked higher faster web sites.

https://moz.com/blog/how-website-speed-actually-impacts-sear...

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#102

Post by tiffanyh »

djrogers wrote: post #85
tiffanyh wrote: post #42

There's a lot of hate going on in this thread towards Google ... maybe unfairly. Keep in mind, a huge reason why Google created AMP is because website bloat has gotten out of control. It's not uncommon for a simply Wordpress blog to be 4MB in size and have 70 requested objects to fetch. I live in a geography that has LTE and web site are painfully slow to load on mobile devices. I can't even imagine what the Internet…

If google thinks page bloat and loading speed are a problem, they could have come up with a set of recommendations (likely most of the ones in AMP) and use PageRank to promote websites that adhere to those standards. Instead, they created a way to hijack the mobile web and become the de facto content presenter for any publisher who doesn't want to be punished by Google.

In case your not aware, since 2010 Google has in fact PageRanked higher faster web sites.

https://moz.com/blog/how-website-speed-actually-impacts-sear...

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#104

Post by devy »

From what I read, majority of the focus of page bytes reduction to optimize fro mobile experiences is on lowering JPEG image quality (AMP Lite) and/or fixate it to 85% for AMP.

I wonder why Google is taking a fixed reduction of image quality reduction rather than considering a dynamic image quality reduction approach like JPEGMini[1] and Kraken.io[2] took?

The latter ones will take visual perceptions into consideration hence they are usually able to squeeze out more bytes savings in the end.

[1]: https://www.jpegmini.com

[2]: https://kraken.io

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#105

Post by grezql »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #36

I hate AMP. Not even kind of, I mean so much I've started using Bing (DuckDuckGo hasn't been so useful for me). Beyond the distasteful navigation hijacking, and often broken or buggy page loading... I think Google throwing its weight around to force publishers to use it is an abusive use of power. I also think it's an unnecessary standard since it's nothing more than simple well wittten HTML and CSS. Yes, we should m…

AMP is horrible and I wish European Union or someone would hit hard on google. They are essentially forcing websites to format the sites in exactly the way Google wants, then they steal the content. All these google SEO guidelines inevitable end up helping google becoming even more powerful abusing their almost monopoly in search engine market.

When power is too concentrated in one area, its never a good sign for the common good.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#106

Post by Panino »

I think the root issue here is that most websites are now designed by people who don't even know HTML. ("You had one job!")

From there, we get years of unoptimized, bloated websites made by people drawing pictures with HTML editors. They are exclusively focused on visual presentation and ignore any mechanics under the hood. Not everyone, but most. Finally Google can't take it anymore and creates AMP as an angry middle finger to these people. ("I drink your milkshake!")

IMO the right solution is to use speed as an increasingly more important ranking signal. Push crummy bloated websites to the bottom where they belong. I read the article but didn't see Google address this rather obvious idea.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#108

Post by angry-hacker »

ParadoxOryx wrote: post #17
saycheese wrote: post #10

There is zero reason for AMP to be hijacking URLs or embedding any additional elements into a page that are detectable by the average user. Beyond that, universal opt-out should be possible and stats on the percentage of users opting out should be published real-time. As such, until this is addressed, I am against AMP.

Sounds like Cloudflare is working on it [1]. "In the spirit of open source, we're working to help develop updates to the project to address some of publishers' and end users' concerns. Specifically, here are some features we're developing to address concerns that have been expressed about AMP: ... A way for end users who would prefer not to be redirected to the AMP version of content to opt out" [1] https://blog.clou…

Indeed. We have pagespeed, use it as a higher signal.

But no, Google wants to own your content and users. Only very naive person believes they do it in order to fast up the web. If they started punishing harshly slow websites with 10mb of js, believe me ,it would change over night.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#109

Post by angry-hacker »

tiffanyh wrote: post #101
djrogers wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If google thinks page bloat and loading speed are a problem, they could have come up with a set of recommendations (likely most of the ones in AMP) and use PageRank to promote websites that adhere to those standards. Instead, they created a way to hijack the mobile web and become the de facto content presenter for any publisher who doesn't want to be punished by Google.

In case your not aware, since 2010 Google has in fact PageRanked higher faster web sites. https://moz.com/blog/how-website-speed-actually-impacts-sear...

Which is exactly the point. Use it as a stronger signal and case closed. Web will change the way they want. Always. Right now they want to change it to their walled garden.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#110

Post by chickenfries »

franze wrote: post #95

I implemented AMP on my own project and we implemented it at some clients ... all regret it. The bounce rate, time on site, average page views of AMP pages is always worse than on the responsive version. And as we now have responsive webpages + an AMP version to maintain the overall project costs got higher. Additional the AMP pages are already falling behind as devs and management just hate them. And outside of the…

Absolutely agree. I work in publishing, our readers are confused by the changed design of the site (Who the hell knows about AMP or Instant Articles besides people in the industry? The average reader doesn't care).

We have to maintain variations of article templates for our responsive website, AMP, Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News now. Product owners and editors think implementing these things is cheap and easy because of all the marketing but unless you have something like a basic wordpress setup, it's plenty of work to implement and adds a lot of things to maintain and requires developers to remember which subset of HTML AMP uses, what the JSON API for Apple News is like... at least Facebook Instant Articles use rss...

Post reply on HN