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

231–240 of 247 posts

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

#231

Post by rocqua »

donohoe wrote: post #219
colept wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP is devastating blow to Publishers because not only does it marks Google's intent to steal away traffic, but also punish publishers for not allowing that to happen. What choice do you have? Reject traffic from Google? Every time I have been to an AMP-enabled page it's been an awful experience and unwanted. But you don't "search" for something you "Google" it.

Hang on, I'm not a big AMP fan but it does not steal publishers traffic at all.

If I recall, the page is actually served from a google.com domain.

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

#232

Post by fixermark »

mthoms wrote: post #193
fixermark wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they've been using it for six years, and it hasn't improved things, what makes you think using it as a stronger signal will (a) actually improve things, (b) not make it trivial to game SEO?

> they've been using it for six years, and it hasn't improved things Citation?

On the six years or on the "hasn't improved things?"

The six years is the age of the speed PageRank signal, according to the grandparent post.

"Hasn't improved things," I had assumed 'the web is getting slower' was common knowledge, but here's an example of the family of articles you can quickly find on the subject: http://www.webperformancetoday.com/2015/07/08/news-sites-tak...

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

#233

Post by colept »

donohoe wrote: post #219
colept wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP is devastating blow to Publishers because not only does it marks Google's intent to steal away traffic, but also punish publishers for not allowing that to happen. What choice do you have? Reject traffic from Google? Every time I have been to an AMP-enabled page it's been an awful experience and unwanted. But you don't "search" for something you "Google" it.

Hang on, I'm not a big AMP fan but it does not steal publishers traffic at all.

It does siphon traffic by serving it from google.com, and adding a frame to the top that when clicked will take you back to Google.com. When you swipe left or right, it takes you to other AMP links from different results.

AMP links are given priority in search.

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

#234

Post by Crespyl »

RileyKyeden wrote: post #228
seanp2k2 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For what it's worth, FireFox has a similar reader view on Android and desktop.

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

#235

Post by detaro »

davewasthere wrote: post #205
detaro wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what happens if you load the AMP version from their server, which IMHO is the fairer comparison when discussing complaints about the Google cache of it? AMP as a "document standard" on top of HTML would IMHO already solve a lot.

It's not really a fairer comparison, because their non-AMP view is what they currently think is appropriate to serve. It's not. The web has bloated out of control - and while I'm not a fan-boy, I at least think AMP encourages the right things and is a progressive step forward in the right direction. I _like_ viewing AMP pages from an end-user perspective. And I don't think they're terribly onerous from a publisher/de…

Google could easily "motivate" them to provide AMP pages (as they have successfully done) without adding their own caching layer, which the complaints above mostly seemed to be about.

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

#236

Post by saurik »

mikecb wrote: post #65
greenspot wrote: post #39

I have a bad feeling. Google is creating a proprietary version of the mobile Internet, a layer between them and us. Looking at the specs, it's open but paired with the AMP cache and Google's ranking algorithm which already clearly prefers AMPed pages it doesn't feel like a free choice. What if I don't want to use Google's AMP cache and rather my own CDN? What if I don't want this useless AMP banner at the top of my A…

Cloudflare just launched their own amp cache. Nothing proprietary about this.

As far as I can tell, to do this they had to partner with Google, who are the arbiters of what is and is not AMP compatible. This is absolutely "proprietary" and honestly pisses me off even more than if it were only Google's servers in charge of this stuff as now they are screwing with the CDN market as well :/. An open standard is something anyone can implement and be compatible with, without permission.

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

#237

Post by beezischillin »

adtac wrote: post #26

To everyone who's against AMP - try opening any article on an extremely slow 2G connection when you're travelling and try the same with AMP. The difference is night and day. You may be against some principles, but it's an absolute life-saver sometimes.

I tried opening sites with AMP, and some of them didn't even load. 1000/300 AC 5ghz wifi. What is page speed when sites don't load? My guess is even on 2G that's not an added bonus..

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

#238

Post by malchow »

fixermark wrote: post #151
malchow wrote: post #107

AMP was originally a more interesting project called PageSpeed that was open to anyone running webserver(s). I helped the Goog guys work on it by dint of having founded a premium adexchange company. It was great. AMP? Somewhat less great.

Actually, they're separate. PageSpeed is still here: https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/

They were one and the same. AMP looked more profitable, so PageSpeed Service was deprecated. Only the documentation remains.

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

#239

Post by mikecb »

saurik wrote: post #236
mikecb wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cloudflare just launched their own amp cache. Nothing proprietary about this.

As far as I can tell, to do this they had to partner with Google, who are the arbiters of what is and is not AMP compatible. This is absolutely "proprietary" and honestly pisses me off even more than if it were only Google's servers in charge of this stuff as now they are screwing with the CDN market as well :/. An open standard is something anyone can implement and be compatible with, without permission.

You may take from the story what you wish, but afaik, the collaboration you're referring to was informal engineering discussion, not required permission. I can't charitably get to your interpretation from the blog posts or public comments by those at CF.

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

#240

Post by saurik »

mikecb wrote: post #239
saurik wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I can tell, to do this they had to partner with Google, who are the arbiters of what is and is not AMP compatible. This is absolutely "proprietary" and honestly pisses me off even more than if it were only Google's servers in charge of this stuff as now they are screwing with the CDN market as well :/. An open standard is something anyone can implement and be compatible with, without permission.

You may take from the story what you wish, but afaik, the collaboration you're referring to was informal engineering discussion, not required permission. I can't charitably get to your interpretation from the blog posts or public comments by those at CF.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cloudflare-adopts-google-amp-...

> So while Google means well here, Prince says, AMP hasn't been as open as publishers were perhaps hoping it would be. You still have to give your content over to Google to take advantage, which is suboptimal for publishers.

> This is where Cloudflare swoops back into the picture. By working with Google as the first AMP partner, Cloudflare is contributing to making AMP "a really open standard," Prince says. And this announcement of loading mobile AMP pages seems subtle, but it's the first time that these lightning-quick pages are served out of Cloudflare's system, and not Google's. It's something publishers have been asking for.

If it were possible to just host the AMP content using another CDN not blessed by Google it would have been trivial for these publishers--almost all of whom certainly are using CDNs such as Akamai--to host their own content. It is only by being an "AMP partner" that this seems to have been possible. Do you have any evidence on the other side of this? I ask because from my perspective I can't "charitably" get to your interpretation given the reading I did on this subject.

Post reply on HN