461–470 of 570 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They load massively faster than normal sites, especially on poor mobile connections where main sites sometimes hang indefinitely trying to load javascript, ads, etc. Have you tried the normal mobile websites with an adblocker?
Good luck doing it on mobile phone. I'd say 99.99% users out there on mobile never even attempted to use another browser than safari or chrome for ios.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good luck doing it on mobile phone. I'd say 99.99% users out there on mobile never even attempted to use another browser than safari or chrome for ios.
Firefox on android lets you install most of the available desktop extensions, so you can use your favourite ad blockers
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course AMP has other motives than simply making the web faster for mobile, but it also does make the web faster for mobile. I guarantee the AMP version of that paper's mobile website provided a significantly better user experience than the normal version. That is why AMP has been successful, and it's why I will continue to click on AMP links whenever available. Is giving Google that much control ideal? Of course n…
> it also does make the web faster this is true > That is why AMP has been successful This is not. If google removes ranking incentive, people will forget about AMP the next day
For those interested in security - AMP basically forces the iframe javascript sandbox security model. https://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/security/sandboxed-i... Even reputable web pages tend to have a metric TON of non-sandboxed javascript from third parties. If you care about your security this is a risk. If you stick with AMP - this is - by spec - prohibited. Something to think about as you browse the web gobb…
The most annoying thing for me, as a vision-impaired user, is that AMP pages disable zoom. I know that can be overridden in Chrome's accessibility settings, but it's a shitty practice that something like AMP shouldn't be promoting.
I worked on amp for a leading newspaper, and everyone who says that amp is about "making the web faster on mobile" is either very naive or doing marketing for google. For publishers, amp is about trying to top the results on google search and capture traffic, it's their only motivation to publish their content using amp, and the only metric they look in order to evaluate the results. Once they have their amp content,…
Of course AMP has other motives than simply making the web faster for mobile, but it also does make the web faster for mobile. I guarantee the AMP version of that paper's mobile website provided a significantly better user experience than the normal version. That is why AMP has been successful, and it's why I will continue to click on AMP links whenever available. Is giving Google that much control ideal? Of course n…
Applications used to fit on a floppy disk. Websites used to be a few K in size. AMP might be successful (if it's even considered successful), but only for a short while. I avoid AMP links when I can, since I don't want the jank, stripped down experience of a site. If I really want a great experience on publishing sites, I just turn on Reader Mode.
And of course, it's preposterous that Google gives preferences to AMP pages on search rankings. It's just as if Amazon prioritizes its own products in its search rankings (not saying it does or doesn't).
Probably highly unpopular opinion, but as a user I've never had anything but positive experiences with AMP-enabled sites. They load massively faster than normal sites, especially on poor mobile connections where main sites sometimes hang indefinitely trying to load javascript, ads, etc. While content publishers are continuing to overload their sites with further trackers, ads, javascript, remotely loading assets whic…
> They load massively faster than normal sites, especially on poor mobile connections where main sites sometimes hang indefinitely trying to load javascript, ads, etc. Have you tried the normal mobile websites with an adblocker?
But I've also implemented AMP pages and as a developer they are a PITA. And as discussed in the OP and related they are definitely an of example Google crowd-sourcing their challenges onto everyone else.
Part of what makes AMP pages faster is that the AMP constraints force you to abandon not just ads but also many other complex HTML5/CSS/JS features. The resulting UX is less sexy and may be lacking in functionality, but there is simply less of it. Getting simple AMP pages from Google's cache _is__ noticeably faster on mobile, as much as I wish it wasn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In the past"? I can reproduce this on my daily driver today . Why do I need to change my workflow because Firefox got worse at what I've used it for for years? If I have to change the way I work, why not change browsers too? If there's a tab limit beyond which Firefox can't effectively control itself, why is that not a hard coded limit?
Ram is cheap: https://www.amazon.com/slp/memory-ram-ddr4/rcnyvqomjbxu8pj
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hello, gregablr, who works on AMP and doesn't disclose it. You mean: - signed exchanges created an pushed by Google and Google only to solve a problem that didn't exist before AMP - "implemented by some browsers" as in "implemented only in Goigle Chrome" even before there was any consensus or standards work as yet another avenue of creating Google-onlu web.
Personal attacks will get you banned here, so please don't post like this. We've asked you more than once, including https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19811041 . https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: between the parent comment and these, you were outright harassing another user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21716790 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21716648 And you did it here too: htt…
This is important info considering the moral and technical gray area of AMP. We've seen members of the AMP team discuss AMP "in good faith" here while shutting down any questions and discussions on all AMP-controlled venues (GitHub issues, mailing list etc.).