Ferdy Christant

Google has had performance guidelines for seveal years now: https://developers.google.com/speed/ Funnily enough, Google’s own AMP fails those guidelines when not preloaded and pre-rendered from Google’s own CDN: https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424031047 Google will continue doing what it does: caching and preloading whatever content it prefers (select publishers, select advertisers) and penalize everyone else even if they follow all of Google’s guidelines to a T. Web Packages, no matter how well you disguise them as a web standard, will not solve that.

I'm not trolling. I'm just having a conversation trying to find a middle ground, but I don't think we are there at all. Especially since I'm in the bucket of outlier. > I'd really love to understand how we missed the mark for you, and how we've been hostile, in case that applies to non-outliers and it's something we can improve on. I thought I answered that above: "Sending a FINAL NOTICE and then a more friendly reminder, and then not doing anything, is hostile behavior intended to extort people to pay money for a service that really hasn't seen any improvement in a very long time." --- This conversation got me thinking about the history of things given that I've been a member of that site for 19 years. So, I went searching. This is a pretty good article I ran across from 2019: https://ferdychristant.com/the-rise-fall-and-resurrection-of-flickr-ca… I find that little has changed since that article was written.

> Most of the times, the AMP site is faster Except AMP sites usually aren't faster. They just get preloaded[0]. If google preloaded non-AMP sites (which is technically feasible, there has been browser extensions doing this since ages ago), they too would load "faster", fancy that! There's no good part to AMP. It's bullshit that doesn't really work. Sure in absolute metrics, your website might be "faster" simply by following AMP's rule, but it'll still usually be way too slow without google's cheats. You know what works to make websites load faster? Not including megabytes of javascript, properly configuring your server to compress the data, keeping images at a reasonable resolution, and preferably under the fold. The only thing AMP was ever good for is give Google a convenient excuse to seize control of content distribution, giving them even more insight on users' browsing habits and whatnot. And golly did it work. [0]: https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424031047

> What I'm getting at is maybe AMP is Google's way to make the problem easy. Sometimes when a general problem is difficult, you're better adding restrictions to make the problem tractable. It absolutely is! (Sorry if I made it sound like it wasn't). That's what the goal is of Feature Policy and other standards too: to add restrictions to make it easier to solve. > Can you elaborate? How easy would it be to test AMP pages for that? I keep meaning to make an example, but real work gets in the way. :) Basic gist though is that AMP is, again, only a fuzzy approximation of good performance. You can still mess it up. As for testing, the best thing to do is probably test from the origin server. That way you eliminate the Google cache layer and just focus on what the format itself actually accomplishes. There was a post recently where a guy did exactly that, and the results were far from instant: https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424031047#8e1… The conclusion, for anyone who doesn't want to click through, is that the vast majority of the performance benefits don't come from AMP itself. They come from A) the Google cache layer and B) the fact that Google preloads the AMP page in the background before you click on it.

https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424031047 is relevant to the discussion as well.

Yes, AMP is rather slow: https://timkadlec.com/remembers/2018-03-19-how-fast-is-amp-really/ and looks fast mainly because Google preloads it: https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424031047

> because it is the default on Windows? Which clearly didn't mean anything [1] for increasing market share. [1] https://ferdychristant.com/the-state-of-web-browsers-f5a83a41c1cb#b7aa

The challenge for your marketing is to educate people and to update their beliefs. It would be nice if you ran public benchmarcks of two equivalent app one in Ionic, one in RN (and eventually more (flutter, etc)) If you are empirically the fastest (maybe we will need to wait a few chromium milestones or to manually enable Vulkan) You could market those numbers by showing you are the first to have Vulkan rendering, HTTP3, CSS contains, dom fragments, etc (I believe Microsoft is working on moving chromium input handling out of the main thread) And if you showed things you can't do/easily do in react native. For example backdrop-filter has recently been added to chromium and is the future of UX. https://ferdychristant.com/please-help-make-backdrop-filter-a-reality-… But really there's so many features that you offer and others don't! OpenXR, SVG support, css width auto, css grid, etc If you want an exhaustive list: https://www.chromestatus.com/features Really if react native was on https://caniuse.com/ people would see the truth (the feature gap). Your marketing also could just make visualizations about the gap in size between the ionic ecosystem (more plugins than RN + all npm packages) vs RN npm packages, that would show the order of magnitude of order of magnitude difference and so how many billions of dollars of man/hours developpers miss by choosing RN. Unrelated: I hope that you are aware of the cordova maintenance issue…