undefined | Better HN

0 pointsec1096854y ago0 comments

If Google's servers pre-cache the contents of the article, the experience is instant when you click on a link, so the idea that it's slower to read a Google Amp Link on a Google Search Result compared to clicking out to a separate website is false.

If a publisher simply uses Google Amp on their own site to display websites, then it can be slower.

They slowed the non-AMP ads because they didn't want loading them to interfere with the content the user was interested in reading.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

ocdtrekkie4y ago· 2 in thread

> They slowed the non-AMP ads because they didn't want loading them to interfere with the content the user was interested in reading.

This is what Google may have told the public, and obviously would like you to believe. However, internal Google emails demonstrate very differently: AMP was designed to increase Google's ad revenue.

Same source:

"Google ad server employees met with AMP employees to strategize about using AMP to impede header bidding, and how much pressure publishers and advertisers would tolerate."

jefftk4y ago

Link to the internal emails? I've read a lot of the emails that came out in the lawsuit, and haven't seen any demonstrating that.

ocdtrekkie4y ago

The link I'm referencing doesn't so much as unredact all of the facts listed here, I'm not sure the public has access to the emails described in this complaint at this time. If you know of a publicly accessible cache of internal Google emails sourced from legal discovery processes, I'd love to know about it!

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse