1. 26
  1.  

  2. 22

    For anyone else who sees red when an overloaded or otherwise undefined acronym is used without explanation or expansion despite being the single subject of some writing, I give you “Accelerated Mobile Pages”. Use in good health.

    1. 6

      cue the people complaining about “accelerated mobile pages pages” (:

      1. 3

        cue people complaining about non-conventional smilies :)

    2. 20

      It’s sad to compare the AMP and non-AMP versions of an article on the same domain. They’ve demonstrated that they’re capable of building a fast loading page yet don’t offer that to people visiting their main site.

      1. 3

        This. So much! One up-vote is not enough.

      2. 16

        They answer the question in the first sentence:

        They do load fast, which is a terrific user experience

        1. 10

          Eh, that really ignores the thrust of the article. Sure, they load fast, and users like that. But the question is why do publishers feel so comfortable cedeing an enormous amount of control to Google, by allowing their content to be served directly by Google, under URLs under Google’s domain, that get shared, without anyone being sent to the publisher’s own servers?

          1. 9

            Another way to look at this is that publishers get free hosting and save on bandwidth costs but still get to run their ads and don’t need to pay Google a cent for this.

            1. 7

              Sure. But if I’m a publisher that’s a deal that I’d really be asking myself what the catch was going to be in the long term. Losing control over core parts of your business is never a good long-term play.

              The fact that people are linking to and sharing to my content on not-my-branded-domain would and should make me extremely concerned about the long-term benefit of this scheme for me.

              1. 7

                Publishers are in a rough spot and mostly just trying to stay afloat rather than thinking about their long-term health. Same reason they have been falling over themselves to publish Facebook Instant Articles.

                1. 4

                  No doubt. The Facebook Instant Articles are a terrible idea too.

                2. 5

                  I’d really be asking myself what the catch was going to be in the long term.

                  Can you unpublish an AMP page?

                  1. 1

                    Does the domain matter? Maybe for search, but the publishers name is right there

                    If Google were to abuse this at all, antitrust regulators would have such a field day. And why? Google’s getting what they want out of this

                    1. 4

                      To point at but one issue with it: lets say this goes the way of a lot of Google products, and disappears in a year or five. What happens if I were making significant revenue off of evergreen links that happened to use the AMP URL? I’m at the mercy of whatever Google decides to do (redirects? 404s?). That’s not something you want to leave up to a 3rd party when it’s your business at stake.

                      1. 2

                        If you do business on the web your revenue is already at googles whim (to a first approximation)

              2. 5

                And again, in the second paragraph:

                I searched for “ars pixel preview.” The first search result was the AMP version of his review.

                1. 5

                  Does Google give results boosts to pages with AMP versions available?

                  1. 7

                    Yes, they have a results carousel at the top that’s all AMP in some cases, even if you didn’t say “AMP” in the query.

                2. 4

                  Which is true, but is AMP the only way to make a web page that loads fast?

                  1. 2

                    You can get very close by not including any 3rd party js or other sources of slow, and paying top dollar for a cdn, getting your cache headers right, etc. users already have Google DNS cached, but that’s not a huge deal

                    1. 1

                      For small assets and moderate traffic CloudFront has been really reasonable for my blog. Typically traffic runs about ten cents a month; I don’t get much, obviously, but it’s cheaper than a VPS, doesn’t require patching, and is really fast.

                3. 3

                  Oh, that’s what’s going on with those things. I noticed it when loading some pages but wasn’t sure why it was happening or how I could make it go away.