In summary, it claims that Google falsely told publishers that adopting AMP would enhance load times, even though the company’s employees knew that it only improved the “median of performance” and actually loaded slower than some speed optimization techniques publishers had been using.
It is great to see Google create a new Page Experience signal using a brilliant object-oriented approach. I think it is smart, flexible, and scalable. That said, in my opinion, the signal must have teeth in order for it to be taken seriously by site owners, developers, and SEOs. If not, it can fall by the wayside.
It is not uncommon for experts to be told sometimes: "Google does this" or "Apple does that" to justify terrible practices. Except that Apple and Google are just as often wrong as the rest of us. Their notoriety doesn't make them better, it just increases their level of accountability. Nothing more but nothing less.
Yes it's better to self-host as the performance gains are substantial […] However, Google Fonts is not just a repository of hundreds of free fonts - it is also a clever delivery mechanism […] There is some complexity involved in this (which Google Fonts handles for you) but with WOFF2-only being a realistic option now, and good support of most techniques with inbuilt fallbacks, this is easier than it used to be.
"Je veux être bien clair : je pense qu’AMP est un framework qui a été conçu avec de bonnes intentions, pensé pour résoudre le vrai problème d’un Web devenu bien trop lent pour ses utilisateurs. Mais utiliser AMP ? Le prix pour le Web, et pour ceux qui y gagnent leur vie, est vraiment, vraiment trop important."
This is the beta release of the Google .NET Client Library.
Major features which are included in this build: - Support for all Discovery Google APIs - Generation of strongly typed client libraries - OAuth2 using DotNetOpenAuth