If you hate AMP as much as I do, I highly recommend switching your mobile browser to DuckDuckGo. The results are as good as Google and no AMP.
Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
21–30 of 489 posts
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#22"publication independence"? Really? The man who is famous among other things for supporting the most closed ecosystem there is around: iOS, where a single company decides what apps are worth publishing and wish ones doesn't. Or does newspaper publication independence is really that more important than software publication independence. The irony is so clear that it's weird that he didn't even mention it. That genie i…
Well, it is Gruber we are talking about. He believes in openness when it suits Apple - AMP outputs standard HTML5 which Safari renders - it does its own scrolling but he doesn't quite like it. Google doesn't 'respect' that closed platform. On that 'crime' Gruber has this to say - "If I had my way, Mobile Safari would refuse to render AMP pages."
You might have valid reasons not to use AMP but Gruber's are merely that he ends up sharing google.com URLs on twitter, it's Google, and it does its own scrolling on iOS.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#23In theory* I don't mind the idea of having a more standardised subset web page that has a consistent internal structure and that renders quickly. However, having Google load this structured content and host it on its own platform is a terrible idea. Content should remain on the publisher's site. Putting too much content in one place is dangerous for competition. * In practice there are implementation problems too, e.…
> Putting too much content in one place is dangerous for competition Considering we're on the precipice of a global authoritarian-populist cycle, there are non-market consequences to such concentration, too.
What is an authoritarian-populist cycle?
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#24Original link was submitted, flagged (why?) and vouched for.
Tried to submit again and, instead of up voting the previous one, it got resubmitted.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#25In theory* I don't mind the idea of having a more standardised subset web page that has a consistent internal structure and that renders quickly. However, having Google load this structured content and host it on its own platform is a terrible idea. Content should remain on the publisher's site. Putting too much content in one place is dangerous for competition. * In practice there are implementation problems too, e.…
>Content should remain on the publisher's site.
Publishers are free to implement their own cache and host their own content. AMP is open source and they can modify it however they like.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#26"If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own." Is anyone working on a competing standard?
Well, yes, it's called WebpageTest + HTML5.
I care about page weight and have mine render quickly without AMP and without being in Google's clutches. In particular I try to have the page sensibly renderable with the first 10kB or so of content down the wire.
And I try not to have anything critical depend on JavaScript.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#27Ive forced myself to use Bing since google introduced AMP. Do I like it better than Google? No, I don't. But! I like not having google become my single source of content more than I dislike the slight drop in quality as a result of using Bing. I like the sites I go to, to have control over their content and being able to easily link to them.
I think it's reprehensible for google to push this so relentlessly and beyond simply stealing links it makes google into the "internet."
This (AMP) could easily be a standard, in fact it's mostly just common sense (good lightweight HTML/CSS/JS). Instead of Google forcing its way on users and creators it could just lower the page rank of the offenders.
One other thing about AMP that pisses me off as a user and an engineer is it's one more place to maintain meaning one more shitty neglected experience. As a user I hate it when AMP pages are broken and I somehow can't get to the non-AMP version. I don't blame the developers because we have enough on our plate. My anger is solely directed to google for making the damn mess in the first place.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#28"publication independence"? Really? The man who is famous among other things for supporting the most closed ecosystem there is around: iOS, where a single company decides what apps are worth publishing and wish ones doesn't. Or does newspaper publication independence is really that more important than software publication independence. The irony is so clear that it's weird that he didn't even mention it. That genie i…
Well, it is Gruber we are talking about. He believes in openness when it suits Apple - AMP outputs standard HTML5 which Safari renders - it does its own scrolling but he doesn't quite like it. Google doesn't 'respect' that closed platform. On that 'crime' Gruber has this to say - "If I had my way, Mobile Safari would refuse to render AMP pages." You might have valid reasons not to use AMP but Gruber's are merely that…
AMP does NOT outperform HTML5 unless the HTML5 page is horribly designed and ridiculously bloated. But that can be fixed without Google's help.
I'm not sure why your dismissive of the scrolling thing. Having something breaks the feel of the web browser is a really bad idea.
Additionally he's completely right that it breaks other platform conventions that users expect to use. You can't use the share button, you can't tap at the top of the article to jump back to the top.
I can tell you as someone who uses mobile Safari, AMP is incredibly infuriating. It's gotten to the point where I actively avoid AMP search results.
Google has single-handedly broken the way it's search results feel for a number of top sites on iOS, and doesn't seem to care. Further, there is NO OPTION to turn it off.
I would LOVE to have a way to tell mobile Safari not to render the AMP version of the page. Then I could use Google easily again.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#29In theory* I don't mind the idea of having a more standardised subset web page that has a consistent internal structure and that renders quickly. However, having Google load this structured content and host it on its own platform is a terrible idea. Content should remain on the publisher's site. Putting too much content in one place is dangerous for competition. * In practice there are implementation problems too, e.…
I didn't realize AMP content was hosted by Google.
Yeah, one of the biggest problems with AMP is that it works very differently than how the documentation leads you to think it works.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#30A little late to the party.
People have been criticising AMP for all of the reasons mentioned in this pointless article for many months prior.