-
jeffjarvis But they *are* here right now & much more preferable because both is bad for most publishers! It takes time & money to maintain & build AMP pages & they serve--for most of their existence--to do very little other than give Google more control over mobile pages & make less money.Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -3 🙁
-
jeffjarvis I know this might be a wild concept... but spending money and man hours that you would otherwise not need to spend in order to build pages that mostly only run offsite and make less money isn't an economically sound project.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood 0
-
jeffjarvis Let's be clear here... AMP did not push most publishers towards improving their speed. Google setting Core Web Vitals up did so. If they had done so at the beginning instead of AMP we'd be much further along to a more performant web that doesn't require pubs to cede control...Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood +3 🙂
-
jeffjarvis There was always a clear path to a healthier web... Google making its ad tech, which is almost always the least performant element on the page, function better. If they wanted to use AMP usefully, they should have done so by forcing its use in their ad server...Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +3 🙂
-
jeffjarvis But they didn't, because that might cost them some money, and why should they have to potentially lose money for the web's health or performance when they could push that burden to publishers? ...Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -2 🙁
-
jeffjarvis The biggest burden on page speed is ad tech, I 100% agree. But who is the biggest ad tech vendor on the planet? It isn't publishers. It's Google. Why should publishers be asked to develop a performance standard when Google is causing the problems?On twitter.com
Mood -3 🙁