71–80 of 566 posts
if anyone else prefers to share the original link, you can probably find the article by searching on duckduckgo. Using their search more often now these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For reportedly being there to accelerate the web, AMP pages remain consistently slower and less reliable than the original websites for me.
I'm still against AMP on a conceptual ground, but it is so much faster and more reliable than traditional page loading on my phone. Pages can't have megabytes of JavaScript and huge images. It's served by Google's fast CDN instead of some far-away server.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With amp I basically do "find the page, edit url to remove amp, load again" dance. It is definitely not faster.
There's an extension for this. Works on mobile (at least until Mozilla kills extensions on their mobile app) https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amp2html/
I switched all my default search to DuckDuckGo a few months ago because of stuff like this. No regrets here. If you haven't tried it recently, give it a shot. It's gotten tons better in the past few years. Once you get used to it, it's as good as Google search.
And there are so many nice features, like the !bangs search prefixes, and the ability to store and sync your preferences as a passphrase, without requiring an actual account. The dark scheme is also quite good.
I mainly use it for '*.countrydomain' to get results for a specific country.
This is pretty much what we've been saying would happen since the day AMP was fire presented to the public. I really hope this AMP thing never becomes anything mainstream, it's an atrocious attempt at monopolizing the internet as a whole.
How does anyone think this is a good idea? It should be clear which news site I am reading when I'm reading an article. Otherwise, how do I know which bias to apply? On iOS, the title bar says "google.com" whether I'm reading an article from CNN.com or WashingtonExaminer.com. Of all the anti-competitive actions google has taken around search results, AMP is by far the worst. I hope they get smacked down for it in the…
To think their motto used to be "don't be evil"... pretty insidious in retrospect.
This Twitter post costs me 1.6MB of bandwidth and it keeps pinging for more stuff, and that's with an ad blocker enabled. While we're talking just bytes in terms of the main message.
Google is selling it as an improvement to the web, but that also says a lot about websites.
But this has been Google's strategy for a while now; they push technology that make the web faster and accessible to more people (like Chrome, HTTP/2 and 3, webp/webm, google DNS, google fiber (discontinued), Android, etc) and score goodwill, but at the same time they know if people can browse faster they will run into Google ads more often, earning them more money.
AMP is no different; if a site that doesn't even have google ads takes 10 seconds to load, they earn nothing. If the same content takes <1 second to load, WITH google ads, they earn money. And they earn money more often because people can consume more content instead of wait for things to load.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For reportedly being there to accelerate the web, AMP pages remain consistently slower and less reliable than the original websites for me.
examples? Every site in Germany is 10 X bigger in normal browsing compared to AMP.
Why can't they just give a simple setting which lets users disable AMP? This is the most annoying about being forced to use AMP.