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

221–230 of 247 posts

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

#221

Post by seanp2k2 »

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…

The worst part is that you can't choose to load the non-amp version. On iOS, since AMP links to Reddit are 100% broken, I need to URL hack in mobile safari to remove the AMP bullshit to even load the page.

Christ, I tried to visit https://productforums.google.com/d/msg/webmasters/_O8kJMSDpO... from a Google SERP to link to their forums about this issue, and there's an unavoidable Google login prompt gating it...and I use 2FA. Why in the hell do I need to log in to view a forum thread?

Hopefully the push their product cycle up a year or two and deprecate AMP in the next few months.

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

#222

Post by seanp2k2 »

ino wrote: post #215
eeeeeeeeeeeee wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree. The fact that this cannot be disabled (like preferring a desktop site over a mobile one) is really annoying. Google is meddling too much in the website, they need to back off.

if you use https://encrypted.google.com there's no AMP

When I visit that in mobile safari, it prompts me to install some Google app. It's like they're seriously trying to piss people off.

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

#223

Post by seanp2k2 »

RileyKyeden wrote: post #207
Lazare wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, I love AMP. I find it works well, I don't think there's any abuse of power, and I think it's an entirely necessary standard.

Same. An AMP link tells me two things: 1: I won't have a page that bounces around for 5 minutes as useless, non-content elements load. 2: I won't have to peer at a few lines of content through a window of toolbars and ads.

Reader view in mobile safari solves these things client-side. There are others. It's a rendering decision which should be left to the client vs forcing a decision on users in a way which breaks some configurations for people (since there's no way to disable AMP).

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

#224

Post by seanp2k2 »

saycheese wrote: post #10

There is zero reason for AMP to be hijacking URLs or embedding any additional elements into a page that are detectable by the average user. Beyond that, universal opt-out should be possible and stats on the percentage of users opting out should be published real-time. As such, until this is addressed, I am against AMP.

Hey, just like they did with G+...and look how that went. Something something making the same mistakes over and over again.

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

#226

Post by seanp2k2 »

burai wrote: post #169

We used to have RSS, a standard that allowed to read articles easily and efficiently, and it died with the help of google when it killed google reader. And now they have created this new "standard" in their own garden and expect people to go and play it in exchange of better positioning. I think I'll take the suggestion I've seen here and I'll use duckduckgo

They couldn't put AdSense on RSS feeds.

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

#227

Post by Twirrim »

ec109685 wrote: post #24
saycheese wrote: post #10

There is zero reason for AMP to be hijacking URLs or embedding any additional elements into a page that are detectable by the average user. Beyond that, universal opt-out should be possible and stats on the percentage of users opting out should be published real-time. As such, until this is addressed, I am against AMP.

Google can't offer the full amp experience where pages load instantly without controlling the domain. Otheriwse, none of the optimization they outline in the blog post would be possible since it is the proxy that performs them.

That's not entirely true. mod_pagespeed (https://modpagespeed.com/), a plugin from Google for Apache and Nginx, does a whole bunch of the stuff google is offering through AMP, and it's theoretically capable of doing almost everything there. It optimises content on the fly, and stores cached versions of them on the drive for later hosting, etc. etc.

I think possibly the only thing that it can't offer that way is hosting the content through the Google CDN.

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

#228

Post by RileyKyeden »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #223
RileyKyeden wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. An AMP link tells me two things: 1: I won't have a page that bounces around for 5 minutes as useless, non-content elements load. 2: I won't have to peer at a few lines of content through a window of toolbars and ads.

Reader view in mobile safari solves these things client-side. There are others. It's a rendering decision which should be left to the client vs forcing a decision on users in a way which breaks some configurations for people (since there's no way to disable AMP).

Most people, myself included, are not on iOS. It's not solved for most people.

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

#230

Post by tdkl »

flukus wrote: post #206
monochromatic wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP annoys my too, but it hadn't occurred to me to switch to DuckDuckGo. Good idea, just made the change.

I started using it because it get's better results. Google says "oh you searched for something vaguely related two weeks ago? let me show you those results instead of what you're searching for now".

Personalized searches can at least be disabled. AMP on the other hand, not.
Post reply on HN