Dan York
Dan York
Feb 27, 2016 · 1 min read

*Facebook Instant Articles vs Google AMP*

Great article, Dave! And this is definitely a “kind of a miracle”. I have expected that Facebook would be focused on keeping everyone inside their shiny walled garden and thought I understood that Instant Articles involved putting your content on FB’s servers… which I now understand it *does*, but via caching of an RSS feed. Which is VERY cool!

Congrats to Facebook … and thank YOU for writing up this information and your subsequent posts where you are writing more about it.

My question is — how do you see this Instant Articles vs Google’s new AMP that was heavily promoted this week? It looks to me as though AMP is similar in that you create a stripped down version of each article which Google then accesses via adding “/amp/” onto the URL … and then Google caches it in their servers. Now obviously it’s not using a RSS feed and so this needs to be done for each article (and I already see a WordPress plugin out there to do so).

What do you think about AMP? (I saw your comments last year about it just being a caching mechanism.)


P.S. I tried to leave this comment on your scripting.com blog but for some reason today it would not let me leave a comment.

    Dan York

    Written by

    Dan York

    Author, speaker, technologist- Senior Content Strategist at Internet Society. Demystifies emerging tech, social media, security, IPv6, DNSSEC. Enjoys curling.