Nothing really changes. The URL in the bar is still from the cache.
> For a small site, however, that doesn't manage its own DNS entries, doesn't have engineering resources to push content through complicated APIs, or can't pay for content delivery networks, a lot of these technologies are inaccessible.
https://developers.googleblog.com/2017/02/whats-in-amp-url.h...
However, I work for a publisher that delivers almost all our assets through a CDN, over https, etc... we don't really need our pages to be served through the AMP Cache, we could support users visiting the AMP version of our articles on our site, and hopefully get more second-page visits. I don't get it, who is AMP really for, big publishers or small publishers? If I am already a performance-minded developer, I don't need any of the things AMP provides, but I am forced to implement it for the magic google juice.
For the users. When looking at search results on mobile I usually go for the AMP ones, regular results take way too long to load.
But I'd be willing to bet that most users are like me, but I have no data besides the fact the Google seems to be doubling down on it.
(They may or may not actually prefer the experience, but I think it'll be tricky to determine a real signal one way or the other)
I don't know where this myth comes from that amp is all about blocking adblockers: amp pages require a markup that specifically tags ads as ads and prevents running scripts after page load. The only two adblock-defeating techniques are to disguise your ads as content, and re-insert them after page load, both of which are rendered impossible by the amp spec.
Most users anywhere are not blocking ads, adblocking by its nature as a non-default option and something you have to know how to do will most likely never be the thing that "most users do".
However, the idea that people on mobile do not block ads is just false: https://pagefair.com/blog/2017/adblockreport/
Worldwide, there are almost 150m more mobile adblock users than desktop adblock users. The trend of only blocking ads on your desktop is largely a North American phenomenon.
I can't speak to whether or not AMP is designed to try and stem this tide or not, but I can say without a doubt that mobile adblock is exploding, especially when considering the worldwide market, and that publishers are probably very nervous about this.
Most decent website are already fast on mobile, I really don't get all the fuzz about AMP when in reality the small margin you gain from using it is almost non comparable to the real website.
What is considered fast or slow at this point? I can barely see the difference so why go through all this hassle just to please Google?
Its not that I hate it but their approach to page optimization is just wrong but lets just keep feeding the beast.
That's not my own experience, and that's why I keep favoring AMP links when searching on mobile, but YMMV.
lol. For the users looks like the Debian Social Contract. This is for Google's pocketbook.
Users vote with their clicks, and have far more power than publishers.
However, the URL hijacking, combined with the obnoxious UI and making the big X sign return you to google rather than show the non-amp site make me still dislike AMP.