For what it’s worth, I’ve left virtually all of these settings alone and I get great battery life. I don’t ever toggle my cellular connection or WiFi, almost all of my apps are allowed to refresh in the background, and notifications are enabled based solely on need-to-know rather than battery life.
Nobody should ever have to worry about these settings. You should be able to use your phone normally and assume that it will manage battery life for you; at least, in an ideal world.
Google, as noted, is no shrinking violet. And a big incentive for news organizations to participate in AMP is to satisfy their AMP “general partner” (my expression, not Google’s) on another front — better placement on Google’s search results. Google’s bread and butter is the ads it can sell based on search, and the company has made clear its intention to rank loading speed high in how it calculates search results. Google insists it won’t favor sites using AMP just because they’re serving up AMP pages, but that may become a distinction with little difference.
[Google news head Richard Gingras] told me last week that Google’s search bots had seen AMP pages from more than 1,000 domains — including many major media companies — and, so far, 33 countries. Sites will have to create separate versions of stories, including at least one for AMP mobile pages and another for regular (desktop/laptop) rendering. Kinsey Wilson, the New York Times’ executive vice president for product and technology, calls AMP “probably the most publisher-friendly solution we’ve seen to date” from the big tech companies, but making it all work takes real effort and staff time.
The people behind AMP will tell you that all AMP-enabled pages are cached around the world, so transmission times become vastly shorter.2 But you could pick up an Amazon S3 bucket paired with CloudFront and get a similar effect.
AMP is designed to run only on smartphones — the “M” stands for “mobile”, after all — and its creators recommend serving different pages to desktop users. Why shouldn’t everyone benefit from a faster web?
What compels major third-party publishers to feel comfortable using a nonstandard, somewhat proprietary — if open source — variant of HTML, the development of which is primarily driven by a single company?
Most of all, what problems does AMP solve that could not be fixed through the careful optimization of resources? My site isn’t perfect, but a page almost always loads in about a second and weighs less than 100 KB. I use shared hosting on a single server, too — imagine if I had a dedicated host with a worldwide CDN.3
Between AdSense and DoubleClick, Google has a virtual monopoly on web advertising. They could easily implement strict limitations on what ads can contain, how large they can be, and how fast they need to load. They could optimize their own ad loading scripts and reduce resource consumption of their own advertising and analytics products. AMP’s goals are admirable, but I haven’t yet heard a compelling reason for why speeding up the web requires changing the fundamental architecture of webpages and places the control over their resources in the hands of a third party.
Also, there is a palpable irony in publishing an article about how slow and bloated the web has become on Medium.
I checked a couple of sites using AMP and found that this base script is set to expire from a local browser cache in less than a day, so it doesn’t benefit significantly by leveraging a locally-cached version. ↩︎
Server location still plays a remarkable role in the speed of your site. I occasionally visit Sina Weibo, which is hosted in China, and it’s extremely slow despite fairly average page sizes. ↩︎
Actually, it probably wouldn’t make much difference because I have so few resources. ↩︎