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

91–100 of 169 posts

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#91

Post by rch »

djrogers wrote: post #83
kyrra wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The spec for amp specifically has an "amp-ad" tag for displaying ads. There are multiple ways they can be shown in an AMP page. The nice thing about AMP ads is they will not cause the page to change layout/flow as they load. I believe a size must be declared for ads to prevent bad behavior. https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad

I didn't say they couldn't show ads, but basic ads aren't the only way that these places monetize. Trackers, 'you might also like' panels, etc all feed in to the overall monetization strategy. A couple of amp-approved ads on an amp-page don't necessarily make up for all that...

I'm pretty sure 'all that' is what users are trying to avoid with AMP.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#92

Post by SahAssar »

Zikes wrote: post #29
newsat13 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we really need Instant Articles (Facebook) and AMP (Google) when we can accomplish fast loading pages with plain, uncomplicated HTML and CSS? Can you suggest frameworks that help me do this automatically? Please no, raw html. I daresay that those would recommend developing without frameworks have no experience maintaining other people's projects.

We need it like we needed "use strict" in JS, which is to say not really, but it really helps. I think of AMP as "HTML Strict", a means of enforcing the rules and practices necessary for faster web sites.

So having to include another JS file to use a form or input element is best practice now?

Source: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-for...

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#93

Post by falcolas »

kyrra wrote: post #76
djrogers wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you are not a major publisher trying to make money off these pages. Hate to break it to you, but major publishers aren't making any money of the AMP'd version of their pages - most of the monetization is stripped out, and readers aren't even actually on their site so they won't stay and click around.

The spec for amp specifically has an "amp-ad" tag for displaying ads. There are multiple ways they can be shown in an AMP page. The nice thing about AMP ads is they will not cause the page to change layout/flow as they load. I believe a size must be declared for ads to prevent bad behavior. https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad

If you're loading ads in AMP, there's nothing stopping you from loading equivalent ads in your POHTML either.

Unless Google won't let you load lightweight ads outside of AMP, which is its own issue.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#94

Post by wmf »

infogulch wrote: post #71
vorpalhex wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, really, that's most of AMP: a restriction on a bunch of elements that may slow things down and a bit of special mark up so things can be further accelerated. If most websites actually did load quickly, then I don't think AMP would have a reason to exist. But if most websites can't manage to slim down their bloat, then one potential answer may be to take away some of their toys (and I'm not saying it's the rig…

Ok, so the solution is to create a standard subset of elements and create an open tool to test your site against the standard. If your page meets the requirements it gets the pagerank boost. If it doesn't meet the requirements somewhere then it points out what you need to change. No need for AMP. Why wouldn't this work?

That would work (and personally I would prefer if AMP went in that direction) but it would be merely fast instead of crazy fast because apparently prerendering is only possible if you use the Google CDN.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#95

Post by ucaetano »

ksk wrote: post #45
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 no…

> "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."

Just don't use Google's CDN then, use someone else's, like Cloudflare or Bing.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#96

Post by djrogers »

stonogo wrote: post #31
davewasthere wrote: post #16

Similar to Medium, AMP encourages fast page loads and no interstitials, pop-ups or other cancer that seems to infest the average site these days. Yes, it may be possible to fix it over time. But I see AMP and Medium as clean, lightweight platforms that developers/marketers want to emulate and users will start to demand. From a user experience, you definitely can't beat the speed of AMP delivered content. So it's a hi…

Nothing about Medium is lightweight. Consider this one-sentence article that results in a 1.2MB pageload: https://medium.com/@mceglowski/chickenshit-minimalism-846fc1... There are more examples and a broader examination available from idlewords: http://idlewords.com/talks/website_obesity.htm

Lucky you - that medium link was a 2.19MB download on my laptop.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#97

Post by mark242 »

jsnell wrote: post #58
mark242 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. AMP is a good thing. Google is simply the first company to implement the AMP cache-- Cloudflare has recently spun up their own and outbound links from Cloudflare-enabled sites can use an AMP cache that doesn't rely on Google, so they get the speed benefits as well. The implementation of AMP is one of those technologies that's "the more it gets deployed, the better it is." Reading the spec, it's clear that Googl…

> I could see mobile networks implementing their own AMP caches, so their inbound traffic winds up terminating mostly at the cache layer. This speed boost will win the mobile networks customers. How would that work? Google can replace links to AMP pages with links to their own AMP cache in their search results, since they're the ones generating those resutls. Cloudflare can serve the AMP version of their customers' p…

Just anycast cdn.ampproject.org to a cluster sitting on your network with Google's supervision and cert? This is added value for the provider, just like sticking a bunch of Akamai boxes on your network is added value.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#98

Post by prebrov »

Zikes wrote: post #26
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.

Bing also includes AMP in their search results: http://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-t... AMP is a standard for creating fast / jank-free web sites, which all search engines can implement freely. Google is spearheading the effort because nobody else did, but they're not monopolizing it. Everyone is free to contribute.

Afaik, AMP is solely driven and developed by Google engineers, both standard and implementation.

Everyone is free to follow, but they don't accept contributions. That is monopolising.

Re: Google AMP Is Not a Good Thing

#100

Post by patmcguire »

mikewhy wrote: post #70
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the beautiful thing is, RSS feeds load quickly with no scripts, embedded ads, or tracking, and isn't tied to any proprietary cloud service provider. More and more I am convinced Google convinces everyone to move away from things just so they can "reinvent" them down the line in a more proprietary fashion.

There totally are RSS feeds with ads and tracking.

Including Google Reader. You could put ads in the feed. If you really want to track people an image load is enough, too, although it's harder to plug third parties in.
Post reply on HN