Kill Google AMP before it kills the web • Hacker News Board

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#221

Post by tyingq » Sun, May 21, 2017, 12:42 AM UTC

zackbloom wrote: post #112

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.…

It's worth pointing out Cloudflare has a competing AMP serving tool: https://www.cloudflare.com/website-optimization/accelerated-...

I haven't yet seen a non Google hosted AMP page in Google's carousel.

Does that happen? If not, it's somewhat telling.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#222

Post by 2_listerine_pls » Sun, May 21, 2017, 12:42 AM UTC

Can someone explain How is this killing the open web? Isn't this an open standard?

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#223

Post by megablast » Sun, May 21, 2017, 12:43 AM UTC

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.

I guess you could read and try to understand, or just ignore it and act confused why people don't agree with it.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#224

Post by bromuro » Sun, May 21, 2017, 12:43 AM UTC

cramforce wrote: post #192

MBCook wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The snark at the end seems very unwarranted.

Sorry, but there is some irony there. We were as surprised as anyone. I do like the new inertia much better. Allows for much faster scrolling similar to Android.

nobody wants that. we like the way iOS scrolls and there's no reason for some pages to work different because you are imposing us an unwanted feature we can't disable and makes google impossibile to use. please remove this AMP thing. it's breaking the web - and the scroll is just the minor problem.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#225

Post by cramforce » Sun, May 21, 2017, 12:44 AM UTC

askafriend wrote: post #217

cramforce wrote: post #165

With respect to scrolling: We (AMP team) filed a bug with Apple about that (we didn't implement scrolling ourselves, just use a div with overflow). We asked to make the scroll inertia for that case the same as the normal scrolling. Apple's response was (surprisingly) to make the default scrolling like the overflow scrolling. So, with the next Safari release all pages will scroll like AMP pages. Hope Gruber is happy t…

Is that really Apple's stance? I find the scrolling to be the #1 reason why I bounce from AMP pages. I would hate for them to make this a system wide behavior.

Yeah, I don't care either way. But Safari should have the SAME scroll inertia for every scroll context and ideally it is the same as used for native apps.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#226

Post by fghafoor » Sun, May 21, 2017, 12:44 AM UTC

As a web developer I have AMP but as a user I love it! Websites have been so bloated that something like this was badly needed.

People loading just 100-200 kbs of fonts to serve 10kb of original content.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#227

Post by tyingq » Sun, May 21, 2017, 12:44 AM UTC

Antrikshy wrote: post #8

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.…

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

It is interesting that AMP is about the only edge cache that doesn't let you use your own domain. Cloudflare is fairly good evidence that it's workable at scale. Of course, that would eliminate the hijacking header and Google control over the URL.

Edit: Disagree? What part isn't true?

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#228

Post by trengrj » Sun, May 21, 2017, 12:47 AM UTC

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…

I've switched to Bing on my mobile as well.

My contract with a search engine is that they should provide links to other sites in a relatively painless way. In exchange for this the search engine can track me while I am on the site.

AMP breaks this relationship by refusing to let me leave the site and extends tracking to other sites. The speed difference is negligible to me and not worth this violation of privacy.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#229

Post by PrimHelios » Sun, May 21, 2017, 12:49 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #128

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…

> "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. First of all, that's an ad hominem. If publication independence is important, then it remains important whether Gruber is hypocritical about it or not. Second, one might want apps to be curated…

>First of all, that's an ad hominem

Technically it's an argument from hypocrisy, more commonly known as "Tu Quoque".

Sorry, just get a bit anal about people confusing different fallacies because it makes it hard for some people to understand =P

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#230

Post by Sir_Cmpwn » Sun, May 21, 2017, 12:49 AM UTC

exergy wrote: post #70

jwilcoxson wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Duckduckgo is a lovely idea with abhorrent search results. Like, unusably bad results, at least to the extent that I'm a reasonably tech savvy user. I'm often searching for papers as a grad student, or typing things "close enough" and hoping Google figures it out for me etc. Duckduckgo cannot keep up. I love Bangs, I love the idea, but the search is nigh-useless. That said, I use StartPage, who have a contract I beli…

In my experience, DuckDuckGo just requires a habit shift. You're used to Google knowing everything about you and utilizing that to provide you catered results. Be more specific on DDG and you should be fine.