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

Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 247 posts

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#181

Post by msbarnett »

detaro wrote: post #180
msbarnett wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SVGs are displayed whether or not they're hosted on Adobe's servers. What other servers are serving AMP pages, (edit: and would benefit from this "cached from " URL bar display logic) other than Google's news product?

All the publishers Google copies the AMP from? Google could just redirect mobile users to that if they wanted, as can every other site linking to a page. If they then also got rid of the requirement of loading the AMP JS from a CDN Google runs, they'd actually have something resembling an open standard...

> All the publishers Google copies the AMP from?

But all of those URLs display correctly.

We're talking about having browsers add special-case logic in which some URLs on one particular special domain (news.google.com) belonging to one private company (Google) are treated and displayed differently than everything else on the internet.

> If they then also got rid of the requirement of loading the AMP JS from a CDN Google runs, they'd actually have something resembling an open standard

Sure, if this turned into an actual Open standard, and we were talking about extending browser display logic to any server on the internet that served an AMP page belonging to some other site, that would make sense.

But having browsers bless one company's subdomain with special rules that apply only to it is about as anti-open web as you can get.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#182

Post by dromen »

How does Google do this legally at all? Can I just download and redistribute any and all content I find on the net, and then present it as if it's the original?

More specifically, how do they not get sued into oblivion for copyright infringement? They are after all redistributing content they are not licensed to redistribute.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#183

Post by detaro »

msbarnett wrote: post #181
detaro wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the publishers Google copies the AMP from? Google could just redirect mobile users to that if they wanted, as can every other site linking to a page. If they then also got rid of the requirement of loading the AMP JS from a CDN Google runs, they'd actually have something resembling an open standard...

> All the publishers Google copies the AMP from? But all of those URLs display correctly. We're talking about having browsers add special-case logic in which some URLs on one particular special domain (news.google.com) belonging to one private company (Google) are treated and displayed differently than everything else on the internet. > If they then also got rid of the requirement of loading the AMP JS from a CDN Goo…

> But having browsers bless one company's subdomain with special rules that apply only to it is about as anti-open web as you can get.

I totally agree with you on that. They could easily get rid of their cache domain for serving AMP, or people could build browser extensions and other projects avoiding it while still using AMP, but only because all the publishers behind it already serve AMP if you ask for it. Which is why I made the point that it is not just Google serving it, which I clearly should have explained better.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#184

Post by MBCook »

fixermark wrote: post #150
MBCook wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News loads very fast without AMP. Daring Fireball loads very fast without AMP. Lots of sites do. That's up to the people making the sites to fix. He's the thing: I CAN'T OPT OUT. If I don't like it or don't want it my only option is to ditch Google.

You're not claiming the solution to the slow web is that every website should look like HN or Daring Fireball, are you?

No, you can do a lot more and still have it fast. But there are also a lot of sites that have basically the same content as HN or DF and load way too slow due to crud.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#185

Post by lazulicurio »

cygned wrote: post #115
rubyn00bie wrote: post #36

I hate AMP. Not even kind of, I mean so much I've started using Bing (DuckDuckGo hasn't been so useful for me). Beyond the distasteful navigation hijacking, and often broken or buggy page loading... I think Google throwing its weight around to force publishers to use it is an abusive use of power. I also think it's an unnecessary standard since it's nothing more than simple well wittten HTML and CSS. Yes, we should m…

I hate the scrolling on mobile (iOS). I don't know what they tried to do, it feels like a JavaScript smooth scrolling on top of native smooth scrolling.

Agreed that whatever they do to scrolling is awful. On my phone (android, firefox mobile) I can't use Google News anymore because I can scroll down, but can't scroll back up.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#186

Post by claudius »

fixermark wrote: post #148
claudius wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP offers no more or less speed than standard HTML. Even on a slow connection, the majority of that slowness is due to the last mile, not because it takes a long time to get data from Europe to Australia. It really is only about getting yet another way to collect data on users and push ads down their throats.

AMP addresses the last-mile concern by constraining the content of the page to mitigate both low-bandwidth connections and low-power rendering agents. Have you used it? Even on a Nexus 5x running on fast wifi, the difference between loading a Washington Post site from AMP and from washingtonpost.com is tangible.

This is absolutely the fault of the publisher, not of anyone else. If the people running that site wanted to offer a slim and fast experience, they could absolutely do so without including additional Javascript from god-knows-where and whatever other “features” AMP requires.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#187

Post by MBCook »

ec109685 wrote: post #100
iainmerrick wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone know why they do those two things? Why not just deliver a normal web page that scrolls normally?

Apple chooses to use accelerated scroll for iframes in mobile safari for some reason. The inner iframe is needed in AMP for security reasons since the experience on google includes third party iframes as part of the rendering of the article. Google has fixed it so the site name header finally goes away when scrolling.

> Google has fixed it so the site name header finally goes away when scrolling.

Well, that's an improvement at least.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#188

Post by dfischer »

I absolutely hate AMP. I don't understand it at all. In fact, I completely ignore the benefits – this is simply due to the UX. Any link I see with AMP in it makes me want to not tap on it on my phone. It's seriously a horrible experience on iPhone. The entire navigation is uncanny valley territory. I don't have a detailed reason why, but I know that when trying to use the browser I'm frustrated and want to leave. This feels like a poor move.

Re: Google AMP Cache, AMP Lite, and the Need for Speed

#190

Post by bryanrasmussen »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #36

I hate AMP. Not even kind of, I mean so much I've started using Bing (DuckDuckGo hasn't been so useful for me). Beyond the distasteful navigation hijacking, and often broken or buggy page loading... I think Google throwing its weight around to force publishers to use it is an abusive use of power. I also think it's an unnecessary standard since it's nothing more than simple well wittten HTML and CSS. Yes, we should m…

add me as one of the duckduckgo users because of AMP hatred.
Post reply on HN