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

Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 489 posts

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#31

Post by tambourine_man »

notgood wrote: post #7

"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…

I wish there was a big red “I know what I'm doing” button on iOS that allowed the user to download and install a binary from a simple web page.

But technically, you can download the source and/or write your own code, compile and install on your iOS device without jailbreaking or going through the AppStore. It's a hassle, sure, but doable.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#32

Post by SanPilot »

I do not understand the dislike this community harbors for AMP. I personally really enjoy the system; whenever I'm searching for any type of article on my phone (Android), I prefer AMP pages, because they load faster and are far more responsive than some of their more bloated counterparts.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#33

Post by jwilcoxson »

notgood wrote: post #7

"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…

While I get your point, your rebuttal is a pretty hardcore ad hominem.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#34

Post by 0003 »

So AMP benefits google because faster page loads = more DFP views (and also more $ for publishers); AMP benefits consumers because JS is not murdering their memory and dataplans. It seems like web developers are the ones that hate it.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#35

Post by richdougherty »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #25
richdougherty wrote: post #3

In 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.

I mean that when you click a search result in Google you should go to the publisher's site, not to Google's cache of the content. It may have changed since, but that's how it was implemented originally by Google:

https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-amp-speeding-web-chang...

"…but there’s a big catch: if readers decide to share a link to an AMP page they’ve clicked on through a Google search, the link points to Google.com (for example, google.com/amp/yoursite.com/yourpage/amp), not to your site. A Google spokesperson confirms that there isn’t a way to both have your AMP-optimized appear in Google’s prioritized search listings without having that content hosted on Google’s AMP Cache servers."

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#36

Post by teddyh »

tambourine_man wrote: post #31
notgood wrote: post #7

"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…

I wish there was a big red “I know what I'm doing” button on iOS that allowed the user to download and install a binary from a simple web page. But technically, you can download the source and/or write your own code, compile and install on your iOS device without jailbreaking or going through the AppStore. It's a hassle, sure, but doable.

As I understand it, you can only do that by registering yourself to Apple, and paying them $100 for the privilege.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#37

Post by jwilcoxson »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #27

Ive 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 beyon…

Checkout Duck Duck Go, still not Google-level results, but it's still pretty good, and not Bing.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#38

Post by stekenwright »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #20
j1vms wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google using their search monopoly to create a distribution monopoly is also extremely worrying. Google is using any means possible to keep the web (html, js, css) relevant in the age of native apps (that includes Facebook app running on Android). If the web stays relevant, the same goes for Google search.

In contrast, I think google is making every effort possible to direct people away from the web and into the Google ecosystem. Searching for maps? Google. Searching for flights? Google. Searching for information? Google. The list goes on, and the technical means for delivery is essentially irrelevant.

Definitely trying, but overreaching. The public is starting to cut out Google/the middleman and it's really just forcing shoppers into Amazon's ecosystem, those searching for flights to Skyscanner etc.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#39

Post by izacus »

MBCook wrote: post #28
blinkingled wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> AMP does NOT outperform HTML5 unless the HTML5 page is horribly designed and ridiculously bloated. But that can be fixed without Google's help.

And yet, noone cared enough to fix it until now. It's really really hard to sympathize with publishers when they brought this upon themselves by turning their pages into giant autoplaying video infested places.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#40

Post by tambourine_man »

teddyh wrote: post #36
tambourine_man wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish there was a big red “I know what I'm doing” button on iOS that allowed the user to download and install a binary from a simple web page. But technically, you can download the source and/or write your own code, compile and install on your iOS device without jailbreaking or going through the AppStore. It's a hassle, sure, but doable.

As I understand it, you can only do that by registering yourself to Apple, and paying them $100 for the privilege.

Nope, pretty sure you can do it with a free account
Post reply on HN