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

41–50 of 489 posts

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#41

Post by ryanschneider »

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.

That's actually no longer true, you need to join the free dev program, but can publish to your own device without paying $100/year. The $100 is only needed for the App Store now.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#42

Post by dreamcompiler »

AMP is Google's latest attempt to build a walled garden. It's more dangerous to the web than Facebook's WG because of Google's near-monopoly on search. AMP does indeed need to die in a very hot fire.

And in the long term, it's high time somebody built a less creepy, better functioning search engine.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#43

Post by tyingq »

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.

Rich snippets is the catch all for everything else.

You can see a preview for what that means by checking out Wikipedia's traffic decline over the last 3 years or so.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#44

Post by timelol »

It's pretty silly to say "fix your fucking website". The utility of AMP is that it provides a tool for publishers who are ready to admit that they are powerless over javascript. Basically these publishers are ready to say that they are too stupid to run web sites, and they need the help of an outside party.

If the publishers had any ability, sense, or taste then we wouldn't need AMP at all. If I go to the Chicago Tribune's own site my computer will burst into flames. So I actually don't visit it, and I've got it shitlisted in /etc/hosts so that I never do by accident. But I am happy to read their content via AMP on my phone. It's fast and my phone doesn't get hot and I don't get a $1000 mobile bill.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#45

Post by mthoms »

0003 wrote: post #34

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.

> more $ for publishers

I'm curious... What are you basing this on? Is this proven?

Besides, do you really think short term cash is the only thing that publishers should optimize for?

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#47

Post by skybrian »

DamonHD wrote: post #26
skybrian wrote: post #10

"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.

But without branding, it's not the same thing. To compete, someone would need to make an icon and popularize it to compete with the "AMP" icon.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#48

Post by bitmapbrother »

richdougherty wrote: post #35
bitmapbrother wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Goog…

I was under the impression that the publisher could elect to use their own servers for their AMP content. Is this not possible anymore?

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#49

Post by gergles »

ryanschneider wrote: post #41
teddyh wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's actually no longer true, you need to join the free dev program, but can publish to your own device without paying $100/year. The $100 is only needed for the App Store now.

Well, as long as you're willing to reinstall your app every 7 days. Otherwise, you must remit the Software Development Tax.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#50

Post by pmattos »

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.

Not anymore. You can deploy to your own device for free (with an Apple ID): https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/ (scroll to the bottom).
Post reply on HN