41–50 of 353 posts
It's actually a pretty nifty feature when you're browsing the web from a plane's slow wifi.
But the people who designed the page in the first place should be able to make it just as fast without using AMP.
...but they don't, which is the point.
I'll throw my hat in on being a fan of reading news on AMP pages as well (though reddit amp does seem completely broken). I wouldn't care in the least if news site x instead wrote a fast site, I'd happily use that instead. But until they do, yeah, as a user I'll click on the amp link first.
One thing I love about AMP, that seems to never be mentioned when people discuss it, is viewing AMP-HTML pages on my laptop. I wrote a small chrome extension that always forwards my page to the equivalent AMP page (if one exists) and the experience of reading the news is so much better. AMP pages off mobile are really really amazing. Compare Non-AMP[0] vs AMP[1] [0] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Trump-on-the-…
Yeah but here it's functioning effectively as a better ad-blocker (one that doesn't screw up site layout). Looking at how AMP works, I can see why : you'd have to decide before you know who the user is what ads to show. Wouldn't that effectively mean that in a search query followed by an AMP site visit only Google has the opportunity to show targeted ads ?
AMP is okay for news, but terrible for other forms of content. The reddit implementation is way less usable on mobile than going to their actual site. It also results in lower quality news appearing at the top of searches in cases where they have implemented AMP and the better sources haven't.
Can you give an example of how to view reddit via AMP? If I just search for "reddit" on my Android phone for example, there are no AMP links to reddit, only Business Insider etc.
(with all five visible comments, and since the full comments are almost certainly what I was searching for, I end up having to click through to the full page anyway every time)
It's so strange to see Google repeating all the same mistakes AOL did so many years ago. No I don't want your fucking garden, I want the network. If you get in the way of that I'm done with you.
So the argument against AMP is someone's broken implementation and "security" of Google's CDN. Sounds like terrible arguments. That said, Google should give option to opt-out from CDN caching (if they don't already) as otherwise implementing AMP gives Google the right to host your content on their domain.
I believe the Google AMP CDN 'caching' is opt-in anyway
Is it possible to fork the project and keep all the good things that makes it fast but remove all the evil lock in stuff?
If you mean the Google CDN cache, just don't include the Google CDN file and host it yourself instead
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the people who designed the page in the first place should be able to make it just as fast without using AMP.
> But the people who designed the page in the first place should be able to make it just as fast without using AMP. ...but they don't, which is the point. I'll throw my hat in on being a fan of reading news on AMP pages as well (though reddit amp does seem completely broken). I wouldn't care in the least if news site x instead wrote a fast site, I'd happily use that instead. But until they do, yeah, as a user I'll cl…
That's AMP.