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

91–100 of 489 posts

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#91

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#92

Post by velobro »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #18
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…

The key difference is that there are alternatives to iOS, which isn't even a majority share of the market. Google, by contrast, has a far larger share of the search engine market than Apple has of the mobile device market. That means it's more of a concern by default.

Then Apple should make their own search engine...

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#93

Post by zambal »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12
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.…

> 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 makes you think we're on this precipice?

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#94

Post by EvilTerran »

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.…

Seems to me the right approach would be for sites to embrace the HTML5 semantic tags (, and so forth), and browsers to offer a way to view just that semantically-marked-up content - without scripts, with restricted CSS, and maybe with some kind of filtering out of third-party content. Something like Firefox's "reader view", but including more bits of the page.

So the browser would still be downloading the exact same HTML document (straight from the publisher's server, how you want it) - just then ignoring all the clutter. Compare to AMP, which AFAICT necessitates serving a whole separate version of the page with only the blessed markup... it reminds me of the bad old days, having a separate mobile site instead of a single responsive design for all devices. All seems rather antithetical to that grand ideal of separating structure and presentation.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#95

Post by 0x0 »

jwlato wrote: post #83
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.

Publishers already host their own AMP content. Google caches that content, but anyone can go to the publisher's URL and get it directly. Disclaimer: I work for Google and have some involvement with AMP.

If by "anyone" you mean "my tech savvy friends at google" then yes. I've seen many friends end up on a google-hosted AMP version of a webpage, unable to complete whatever ticket purchase etc they needed because whatever autoAMPifyer the origin site uses produced half broken pages. These users have no idea what AMP is or why the page doesn't work (or that they could have reached the origin site directly if they click around on several unlabeled half-invisible icons in the fake-address-bar on top). In fact, they don't even realize they aren't browsing the origin site. They just give up.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#96

Post by niftich »

The complaint about AMP's strange UX paradigms is valid: it works very hard to pretend like every AMP article is a standalone website, but it actually behaves like a viewport-wrapping iframe, where Google Search is on the outside and the article is on the inside [1]. But it's not a personal affront to iOS; it's more of an artifact of Google's confusing market strategy and conflicting requirements for AMP's deployment: pretend like AMP pages are real browser-resident tabs, while actually driving traffic around within the confines of Google Search (vs. outside) when possible. As much as I don't care for their strategy, I respect needing to balance conflicting requirements. They should scrap the dishonest UX and be up-front about what they are, as I write [1].

But Josh descends to hyperbole. I've been both critical and supportive of AMP on here [2], but it's important to not lose sight of the big picture. AMP isn't an effort by Google to kill the open web; it's a technology whose existence was forced by Facebook Instant Articles' meteoric rise, a competitor from a company that doesn't even operate on the level of the open web, but runs a family of products where the data flow is one-way: inbound.

Instant Articles made publishing harder on the web, giving preferential treatment to articles posted within Facebook's walled garden (cf. AMP giving preferential treatment to content that adheres to the AMP spec, the same way they give preferential treatment to content served with TLS). With Instant Articles fizzling a bit [3], AMP's importance as a strategic play is lessened, and we can enjoy its benefits without feeling like we're pawns in a game between two massive content aggregation portals.

Besides, Apple News is the same idea as AMP; I'd be curious how Josh feels about that.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13415625 [2] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=niftich%20%22AMP%22&sort=byDat... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14126073

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#97

Post by [deleted] »

blinkingled wrote: post #22
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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#99

Post by smacktoward »

The only reason AMP is even viable is because the current alternatives are even worse.

Publishers have to date shown a remarkable inability to grasp the idea that user experience matters. Just about every major online publication is painful to browse on a mobile device, even ones that have embraced responsive design, because of things like slow-loading ads, excessive use of JavaScript, and enormous modal prompts for things like subscription offers and newsletter signups. Every year the situation gets worse. And no publisher appears to be willing to buck the trend; presumably they believe that, as long as everybody else's site is just as bad, doing so would just be leaving money on the table. So the economic incentive for change is not there.

AMP is a terrible idea for a lot of reasons, any one of which would in a sane market make it an instant non-starter. But the state of online publishing demonstrates that it is anything but a sane market; it's a market trapped in a death spiral, and in that situation any idea that seems to offer a way out is going to get some traction. So it is with AMP.

The only way to make AMP (or something like it) irrelevant would be for the publishers to get their houses in order on their own, without the need for external pressure. But their leadership doesn't have the kind of farsightedness such a move would require, and that leaves room for someone like Google to come in and do their jobs for them.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#100

Post by izacus »

MBCook wrote: post #63
SanPilot wrote: post #32

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.

The fact that you say android explains everything to me. I'm sure Google made sure it was a decent experience on their operating system. But it's clear they didn't give two seconds thought to iOS, and haven't bothered to improve it since it was released. It really does make google search feel broken. Many of the top results no longer "work right". Ignoring all the other issues of who is in control and whether it's a…

Well now you know how most of those web pages felt on Android before - web devs tested on mobile Safari and left pages broken and utterly stuttery on Android web browser.
Post reply on HN