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

Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

danielmiessler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 169 posts

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#41

Post by err4nt »

interfacesketch wrote: post #20

Do we really need Instant Articles (Facebook) and AMP (Google) when we can accomplish fast loading pages with plain, uncomplicated HTML and CSS? I feel that many web developers don't realise that simple HTML and CSS is often all you need to make clear, fast loading pages. No complicated tricks or techniques required. You can make the page reasonably pleasant in appearance too. Think of the sites you often visit: news…

You already know they're dang fast :P

Version B was noticeably slower for me on desktop, but still 100% okay in my book. Version A was near-instant. My eye caught that the image didn't magically appear fully loaded, but after a split second loading was complete and the page (and layout) look great!

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#42

Post by the_watcher »

mynegation wrote: post #13

It got annoying enough for me to switch my search to bing.com everywhere, including Google's own browser. My two main complaints: 1. Once I am on AMP page, most of the time I want to click around the site and I cannot do that - feels like a cage. 2. URL obfuscates the site name and article title (not completely, but definitely adds visual noise)

The lack of navigation within the AMP site is the reason I avoid clicking an AMP link if at all possible

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#45

Post by ksk »

ucaetano wrote: post #24

> The content loads off of Google’s own server, not from the website itself. It seems the author isn't familiar with how CDNs work, how they've been around for many years and how they serve most of the data on the internet. When you browse YT, the data most likely isn't being served by Google directly, but by a Google-provided rack on your local ISP. When you browse a newspaper website, it is most likely coming out o…

IMHO, the quoted statement doesn't necessarily preclude CDNs. I think you're reading too much into the phrasing, which like you suggested, is a laypersons view of the internet. To me, it is instantly obvious what the author meant. The question is who controls the platform. For e.g. Are you in control if Google chooses to datamine your readers, or if in the future Google is free to show "suggested" content which is not your own, etc, etc.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#46

Post by FlorianRappl »

ptasci67 wrote: post #2

I don't think this post really articulated any concrete reasons why AMP is good or bad. It just said it is.

Well, that is not true. The author clearly stated that the problem with AMP is that it creates an artificial silo where all content is being distributed (i.e., in the hands of) Google. But I agree that more arguments (especially also listing the advantages of AMP) would have given the post more credibility.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#47

Post by lox »

xd1936 wrote: post #33
steffenweber wrote: post #6

Google should reward fast / jank-free websites instead of rewarding websites that use one particular technology (AMP). On SERPs, both the "flash" icon and the AMP carousel are AMP-exclusive which suggests that Google is abusing its market power.

They do. They reward sites that load fast. They also offer AMP as another way to speed sites up, which in turn makes them rise in rankings. But Google offers a large suite of tools to help web developers speed up their websites.

They penalize slow sites, its very different.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#48

Post by wffurr »

I love AMP because I can easily tell which sites will actually load fast and give me the info I wanted directly from the search results page.

Publishers are still able to track pageviews and serve ads, so I don't get what the hullaballoo is all about here.

There's nothing in the AMP spec that stops links from working.

I just searched for "Is Google AMP a good thing" on my mobile, and got the OP's post as the first result (probably personalized?). Had to go to the fourth result for something with AMP, from CIO.com. The page loaded instantly, was able to scroll without things jumping around, and the header link to the CIO.com homepage worked as expected. They were still able to serve ads and count my pageview too, even if I never directly contacted their server.

I just don't get what the big deal is.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#49

Post by wmf »

donohoe wrote: post #40
mark242 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay but let's be realistic-- you are not a major publisher trying to make money off these pages. You can say "yes my page loads in 100k and 300ms until DOMContentLoaded" all you want, that doesn't change the fact that when you slap a couple of pieces of advertising on there, it's going to slow down. To give you an idea-- the New York Times page without any advertising on it is 2MB and has a DOMContentLoaded event at…

>> When ad networks are able to run without almost 2MB of Javascript, then we can talk about how AMP isn't needed AMP pages run ads....

But doesn't AMP force ads to be async?

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#50

Post by wenbert »

I feel sometimes the web is going in circles.

A) First we had simple web pages B) Then people want to do fancy stuff on it. It became slower C) Back to A

Instead of going back to "A", it seems like there new are ideas are coming out (like AMP) but in the end, I really wish we would just go back to "A". HTML is HTML.

Post reply on HN