Response from Google Tech Lead, Re: “Google May Be Stealing Your Mobile Traffic”

Post by millstone » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:32 AM UTC

awesomepantsm wrote: post #64

gleb wrote: post #9

As a user I've learned to avoid AMP pages because the UX is horrible: * back button is broken 1/2 the time * the bar wastes 1/3 of my screen * I can no longer see what site I am on in the url * it's hard to navigate to the / of the site * I can't forward the link * being on a good network in US it solves no problem that I have What I'd really like to see is a way to opt-out of seeing AMP'ed pages in my search results…

Visiting non-AMP sites on mobile is masochistic (e.g. try searching news results). You get basically all the same problems, but also pop-unders, late loading ads, greedy javascript, autoplaying videos, and other bad behavior. The AMP is really quite solid for the news use case, in my experience.

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:34 AM UTC

cramforce wrote: post #55

mthoms wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please address this question @cramforce. Why are you introducing a new and totally unnecessary display element when the back button is built right in to the browser and everyone already knows how it works? No matter how hard I try, I can't think of any good reason for this banner. But hey, to the right of that X there sure is a lot of room for placing an adsense ad! What a strange co-incidence.

The banner is needed to show the logical origin, given that the browser is still on Google.com and the article is shown in a iframe (to enable pre-rendering). Our native apps do not have this constraint and thus don't have the extra bar. I can't give you a 100% reason for the X. I know multiple UI versions were tested and this did well.

Post by StephenConnell » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:36 AM UTC

50CNT wrote: post #68

StephenConnell wrote: post #19

If hacker news had a speed rating next to the links I would probably click on them more instead of just reading the comments to decide if it's worth pulling up an article. Note, It has been suggested that a speed rating on Google would be equivalent to the amp experience with less Google control.

Speed also depends on where you are geographically. Amazon.com is probably faster than Taobao.com in the States, but I'd have the opposite experience over here in China. But then Google is the slowest this side of the GFW, so that might be redundant.

Post by mthoms » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:38 AM UTC

cramforce wrote: post #65

mthoms wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>to show the logical origin, given that the browser is still on Google.com and the article is shown in a iframe What an amazing coincidence that this great new tech requires users to remain on google.com "for technical reasons".

If you have an alternative implementation strategy that enables pre-rendering and swiping while showing the source article origin I am all ears. We can do it in our native apps, and we do.

Post by cpeterso » Tue, Oct 18, 2016, 5:47 AM UTC

djur wrote: post #21

sk5t wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Gosh, I mean, you have a right to sell oil, sure, but maybe if you play by our rules, you'll have an easier time shipping it on the rail networks we own." It's plainly Standard Oil-style monopoly behavior from Google here.

It seems more like UPS saying "hey, we'll ship whatever you want (within reason) but if you can fit it in one of our standard box sizes it'll get there faster and cheaper". What is the ulterior motive or side benefit Google gets from people adopting AMP? Honest question.