Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new approach to web performance

ampproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 177 posts

Re: A new approach to web performance

#91

Post by coldtea »

ducuboy wrote: post #38

What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls. Performance is just the story they are selling in exchange of absolute control of the Web. After all, any publisher can ea…

>What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls.

This is not a Google project.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#92

Post by nateberkopec »

spankalee wrote: post #71
ducuboy wrote: post #38

What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls. Performance is just the story they are selling in exchange of absolute control of the Web. After all, any publisher can ea…

AMP tags are custom elements, they're not invalid. See http://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/

Authored by Google, how surprising.

Also, I'm not familiar with the W3C process, but since this is a working draft, I'd assume they're invalid until the draft is finalized.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#93

Post by mattlutze »

ducuboy wrote: post #43
ducuboy wrote: post #38

What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls. Performance is just the story they are selling in exchange of absolute control of the Web. After all, any publisher can ea…

AMP is just broken HTML, hardly a standard. https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theverge.c...

I wonder what sort of input Vox, as a publishing partner, has had on the development of AMP.

Loading the article in your validator reference shows me 80 some requests returning from 48(!) unique sources.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#94

Post by barkingcat »

coldtea wrote: post #91
ducuboy wrote: post #38

What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls. Performance is just the story they are selling in exchange of absolute control of the Web. After all, any publisher can ea…

> What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls. This is not a Google project.

if you run a whois on ampproject.org, the results clearly indicate it's owned by google.

Registrant ID:mmr-87489

Registrant Name:DNS Admin

Registrant Organization:Google Inc.

Registrant Street: 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway

Registrant City:Mountain View

Registrant State/Province:CA

Registrant Postal Code:94043

Registrant Country:US

Registrant Phone:+1.6502530000

Registrant Phone Ext:

Registrant Fax: +1.6502530001

Registrant Fax Ext:

Registrant Email:dns-admin@google.com

The tech lead of the project is Malte Ubl who by their twitter page : @cramforce indicates that "I make www internet web pages for Google. "

Unless it's a 20% off time project (or a side project of some kind), I can't understand why you say it's not a Google project if it's being funded by google and made by a google employee.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#95

Post by tolt »

coldtea wrote: post #91
ducuboy wrote: post #38

What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls. Performance is just the story they are selling in exchange of absolute control of the Web. After all, any publisher can ea…

> What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls. This is not a Google project.

Looks like it is https://googleblog.blogspot.dk/2015/10/introducing-accelerat...

Re: A new approach to web performance

#96

Post by ducuboy »

coldtea wrote: post #84
ducuboy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about RSS? That offered good performance, was widely adopted and was a real standard working for both publishers and consumers. Remember who actually killed it? Yeah, that was also Google.. by discontinuing their Reader - a very good tool with lots of users but no revenue. That's how much open standards matter. Too bad @aaronsw is not around anymore, he would have said something about AMP.

> Remember who actually killed it? Yeah, that was also Google.. by discontinuing their Reader - a very good tool with lots of users but no revenue. If a single company killing a sigle product could kill RSS, then it wasn't that alive in the first place. The fact is, after 10 years of RSS being available in blogs, news sites and elsewhere, Reader still had an insignificant number of users in the web scale of things. A…

Ok but that still shows how much Google cares about open standards.

And did you just say "few tens of millions" of users is insignificant? How many users are we here on Hacker News again?

Re: A new approach to web performance

#97

Post by spankalee »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #83
spankalee wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It _is_ an HTML (and CSS) subset. JavaScript is used to implement custom elements, like amp-image. That's just how custom elements work.

It's not a subset, it's not a superset. It lacks some HTML things and adds new ones.

Custom elements are a part of HTML, they can be part of a subset.

Disqualifying custom elements from an HTML subset would be like claiming function declarations can't be in subsets of JavaScript.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#98

Post by spankalee »

nateberkopec wrote: post #92
spankalee wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP tags are custom elements, they're not invalid. See http://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/

Authored by Google, how surprising. Also, I'm not familiar with the W3C process, but since this is a working draft, I'd assume they're invalid until the draft is finalized.

Yes, custom elements are not fully finalized, but all of the browser vendors are invested in the spec and finalizing it. There is a lot of activity on it right now.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#99

Post by ducuboy »

pjc50 wrote: post #77
ducuboy wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A platform for sharing ad revenue. They deliver all the amp-ads via that single piece of js, and will share some of the revenue with the publishers. It's not a bad idea after all, if only they had presented it for what it is: a Google fork of the Web. The "performance story" is just the bullshit.

If they're putting ads in custom tags that makes it extremely easy to block them. I think it's nothing so sinister as a "fork of the web", but a badly thought out approach of going back to faster loading web1.0 by recognizing that quite a lot of JS adds no value to the end user.

My point is that this project is not about providing value to the user. Google could have done that more easily.

It may not be so sinister because it's a badly thought out approach indeed. Although they got quite a few big partners already, this undertake requires rewriting the whole Web which is too much to ask even if you are Google.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#100

Post by cramforce »

ducuboy wrote: post #76
scrollaway wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are they selling, exactly? Why does this need to be a framework, with js and all that? I'm not asking cynically, and following it up with "oh, they should just do x instead".... I legitimately do not understand what's going on here. What's the added functionality? I read the article twice, I don't get it. I'm going through the spec, I don't get it. I looked at the article source, I really don't get it, it's just…

A platform for sharing ad revenue. They deliver all the amp-ads via that single piece of js, and will share some of the revenue with the publishers. It's not a bad idea after all, if only they had presented it for what it is: a Google fork of the Web. The "performance story" is just the bullshit.

Many ad networks are supported already, all will be. There is no rev share at all.
Post reply on HN