Live data from Hacker News

Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

theregister.co.uk

71–80 of 489 posts

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#71
post #54
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If that's all Google truly cared about they could've simply put a heavy penalty on Pages that rendered slow or presented garbage. Instead they invented their own thing which caused you to stay on Google sites using Google services to read other peoples content… and said they did it to speed things up. It feels like that was either justification after the fact or that was with the original engineer had in mind but was…

> If that's all Google truly cared about they could've simply put a heavy penalty on Pages that rendered slow or presented garbage.

There already is a penalty for slow-loading pages, but you make a good point that the penalty could be increased to the point where publishers would be forced to adapt accordingly. However, outside of the news ecosystem, that would end up penalizing a much larger base of content creators who don't have the means and infrastructure to handle this.

To say that "well users who have good content should also get their shit together" rings a bit hollow, especially on HN, where technical/deep/interesting articles get upvoted to the front page only to crash from the traffic. If authors of those articles/sites can't do it, then it's a problem for most folks.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#72

"If you don't like the news, go out and make some of your own." Is anyone working on a competing standard?

It's called HTML, and it's been around for a number of years.

If you don't put 12 megs of JavaScript on it and five auto playing video ads… you'd be surprised how fast web pages can be.

This isn't a problem that "needs" solving. It's not like it's impossible or even difficult to make a fast loading pages with the existing technologies. The people who didn't care before or just outsourcing it to someone else who doesn't care about them and everyone's losing in the process.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#73
post #30

A little late to the party. People have been criticising AMP for all of the reasons mentioned in this pointless article for many months prior.

Yep. I think he's written about it before too. The first thing in the article that's not a quote is a link to one of his previous articles.

But he has a link blog, he saw a article he wanted to share, and he added his thoughts as he always does.

And if people listen this time now that we've all had experience of AMP being around for a while ? Sounds good to me.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#74

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.

> The results are as good as Google and no AMP.

I use ddg myself and as much as I like it, it's still quite a bit away from Google in quality of search results. Usually it's good enough, but I still get result pages where ddg has nothing I want and appending !g gives me what I want in #1

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#75

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.…

>However, having Google load this structured content and host it on its own platform is a terrible idea.

Google isn't the only party running an AMP cache.

> Content should remain on the publisher's site.

It does. Its also cached by aggregators, and AMP is designed to take advantage of being accessed from a shared cache.

>

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#76
post #59

Here's your one step recipe to kill AMP: * Build fast webpages. The linked article says: "Yes, AMP pages load fast, but you don’t need AMP for fast-loading web pages." Well yes, but people don't build fast webpages without AMP. They could've done all the time, yet webpages got more sluggish over the years.

Building fast webpages won't get you preferential placement in Google search results.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#77

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.…

I didn't realize AMP content was hosted by Google.

The original content is still on the website, Google hosts a cache server, rehosting the website's content around the world closer to the users for faster access, for free.

In theory, it's a win-win-win situation. Publisher gets free hosting (with analytics and ad money still coming to them obviously), users get a faster experience and Google is happier if the users browser more content.

In reality, AMP is obviously not perfect but they have been addressing common issues and improving. I may not be fully sold on it yet, but I don't understand the massive blind hatred.

Saying "people can just optimize their website" doesn't mean shit. They've had years and no one has been. Sites have been getting slower every year despite browsers getting faster. No one gave a single shit until AMP came around...

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#78

I know it might not be their shtick, but I wish the post focused more on the "publication independence" part of the criticism. Giving Google control over prioritizing a subset of the web, and letting them optimize for it, just gives them a better way to filter content. They seriously have enough power over the web as it is. The other criticisms about how it performs on iOS seem truly secondary, they could easily fix…

Well said. It seems impossible for me to believe that the trajectory Google is on doesn't end in catastrophic, dystopian disaster for us, the consumers. That should have been the focus, rather than scrolling behaviour.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#79

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.

I'd like it if people made non crappy websites instead of amp sites that have slightly different behavior than normal websites. Amp adds nothing of value compared to just writing a non bloated site

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#80
post #45
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?

I think google, which you can google ;), published a study showing that users are more likely to stay on a webpage if it loads under some threshold time. And if this is the case, users are more likely read the content and see the ads on said webpage. Hence, more $$$ for publishers.
Post reply on HN