Google’s AMP Poised to Take the Lead from Facebook’s and Apple’s Walled Gardens

Post by r1ch » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 1:22 PM UTC

wanda wrote: post #9

x1024 wrote: post #5

(The article said to "try any page from The Guardian with '/amp' to test its performance") Oh my: http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/bniZiH/https://www.theguardi... "Such mobile performance, wow". 4 megabytes of video(Preloading two different videos. Why?), maybe 10 different domains, downloading JS before downloading images... And this is the showcase for AMP. It's almost as if "there is no silver bullet" for web perfo…

Using the same tool, I can see that my website loads in 440ms in the Netherlands. The homepage is 140kb, makes 6 requests, leverages caching and http/2 thanks to nginx etc. Which is great and everything, but for a reader in Texas, that becomes 1.2s thanks to the fact that my site is hosted in London. As you point out, AMP pages which weigh in at 4MB can be loaded in a seemingly underwhelming time: ~800ms. However, I…

Post by x1024 » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 1:52 PM UTC

wanda wrote: post #9

x1024 wrote: post #5

(The article said to "try any page from The Guardian with '/amp' to test its performance") Oh my: http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/bniZiH/https://www.theguardi... "Such mobile performance, wow". 4 megabytes of video(Preloading two different videos. Why?), maybe 10 different domains, downloading JS before downloading images... And this is the showcase for AMP. It's almost as if "there is no silver bullet" for web perfo…

Using the same tool, I can see that my website loads in 440ms in the Netherlands. The homepage is 140kb, makes 6 requests, leverages caching and http/2 thanks to nginx etc. Which is great and everything, but for a reader in Texas, that becomes 1.2s thanks to the fact that my site is hosted in London. As you point out, AMP pages which weigh in at 4MB can be loaded in a seemingly underwhelming time: ~800ms. However, I…

Post by Navarr » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 2:03 PM UTC

theefer wrote: post #14

x1024 wrote: post #5

(The article said to "try any page from The Guardian with '/amp' to test its performance") Oh my: http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/bniZiH/https://www.theguardi... "Such mobile performance, wow". 4 megabytes of video(Preloading two different videos. Why?), maybe 10 different domains, downloading JS before downloading images... And this is the showcase for AMP. It's almost as if "there is no silver bullet" for web perfo…

It seems you have chosen a bit of an edge case. Agreed the videos shouldn't pre-load, but to take a more standard example of a simple article: AMP: http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/brWXpA/http://www.theguardia... Requests: 67 Load time: 485ms Page size: 627.3kB Non-AMP: http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/eNuTPX/http://www.theguardia... Requests: 136 Load time: 2.88s Page size: 1.8MB And to be fair, note that the non-AMP…

Post by abrowne » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 2:04 PM UTC

x1024 wrote: post #5

(The article said to "try any page from The Guardian with '/amp' to test its performance") Oh my: http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/#!/bniZiH/https://www.theguardi... "Such mobile performance, wow". 4 megabytes of video(Preloading two different videos. Why?), maybe 10 different domains, downloading JS before downloading images... And this is the showcase for AMP. It's almost as if "there is no silver bullet" for web perfo…

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jan 20, 2016, 2:31 PM UTC