So basically Google could get 90% of what AMP provides without AMP itself, because the magic is in the caching and forcibly reducing the ad junk the page loads.
Does that about sum it up?
Does that about sum it up?
The AMP project isn't pretending they're bringing something unprecedented to the web... they're very open about the fact that most of the things you need to do to make your site "AMP compatible" are just speed-conscious best-practices (like only using CSS transitions that have hardware acceleration, or async loading of assets).
"The project enables the creation of websites and ads that are consistently fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms."
"Web pages and ads published in the AMP open-source format load near instantly, giving users a smooth, more engaging experience on mobile and desktop."
That's directly from the AMP's project site. Those statements are half-truths at best.
now, seriously, I do that just fine with an ad blocker.
(I work at Google but not in search so I could be wrong but I believe they talked about this during orientation)
AMP solves a very real problem, which is that our web stack is open to enormous abuse because it is sometimes too powerful for its own good. While we could make simple HTML that is as fast (of course we can), the reality is that we don't, and many don't often for tragedy of the commons reasons. And the counter-argument that search rankings should just favor this -- e.g. just promote speedy pages -- ignores that abuse would be absolutely rampant (and the other argument -- just run a layer of ad blockers -- completely misses the point). AMP isn't just an ideal, it's a strict set of enforced restrictions.
In previous discussions I've noted that we need an HTML lite to counter AMP, not just the same head-in-the-sand strawmen about how it serves no purpose. An HTML lite that is a mode in the browser, enforced on the DOM and JavaScript. The anti-AMP rhetoric makes it impossible to discuss rationally.
Google are some of the major culprits driving the creation of an unpleasant web experience loaded with tracking and advertising cruft, and now they're pushing this alternative format to supposedly fix the damage they wrought. That's why people are salty about AMP.
It's an imperfect analogy, but imagine if some company had torn up the roads near your house by driving their heavy cargo trucks over it, and now you're irritated by the potholes, that same company says, "Great news! If you just buy our special tires and shocks and install them on your car, you'll have a smoother ride with fewer bumps from potholes!"
I despise ads, but blaming Google for the situation that we're in is seriously missing the mark.
Google wants the web to succeed, for their own selfish reasons. They don't want it to become a wasteland of zombie scripts, cryptomining, pop-overs, and abuse (which tends to be even worse on mobile, as an aside, abusers knowing that mobile users often have fewer tools). They have been pushing pro-web policies since the early days. AMP, as cynical as people can be about it, is one of those.
Your argument is "Google is more technically competent at doing all these crappy things than Google's imitators", but Google was the trailblazer who proved there was big money in ads and scripts that do more than blink a banner.
this is essentially what the AMP team is building - there's a few proposed standards that have come from AMP, with respect to making pages cacheable and pre-renderable.