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

251–260 of 489 posts

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#251

Post by trueSlav »

jdormit wrote: post #23
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 is an authoritarian-populist cycle?

Anyone that isn't a full on left winger. I.e. crying about authoritarianism when you yourself, >by definitionLefties don't like that people can see the bad consequences of unchecked globalism and multiculturalism, but the politicians who aligned with these ideas tend to be popular... so what do you do? Basically consider huge amounts of people idiots who don't know what's good for them and call any politicians with that uncomfortable voter base "populists". Since for every leftist, democracy is great only to a point when it starts to produce results they don't like.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#252

Post by kbenson »

MBCook wrote: post #202
cramforce wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think there's any irony here. You deployed something that worked horribly on iOS, you didn't offer a way to opt out, and when someone else put in a fix for your terrible UX that just happens to change everything else to the way your stuff currently works you use it to gloat and a guy who pointed out how terrible your UX was. Honestly this whole thing (AMP and your comment) come off arrogant as hell to me. I l…

Well, they deployed normal HTML5, which because of how the page was defined happened to expose a weird interaction in how iOS performed some actions. They thought it was a bug in iOS and treated it as such. Getting called out as assholes for doing what they thought was the right thing (and by someone that was wrong on the facts to boot) probably rankled a bit. Calling out Gruber as both wrong and in addition so wrong that the company he thinks was maligned is actually changing to the behavior he dislikes does come off as a little snide, but given the facts I wouldn't hold it against them. I definitely wouldn't use arrogant to describe it.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#253

Post by vesinisa »

MBCook wrote: post #185
vesinisa wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's made it significantly harder to use Google search on iOS. Works well enough on Android Chrome. Irony is, AMP, Android, Chrome and Google Search are all Alphabet (Google) products. I am personally all for platform portability, but certainly it's been Apple who have been pushing for One Closed Ecosystem since the introduction of iPhone, and Apple users have been very happy about it and playing down the vendor lo…

> Now that there's a shard in the walled garden, another player seemingly using the very same tactics as Apple, it's frustrating to see the same users complain about how much it sucks to be disenfranchised from modern computing because they use a different vendor - only this time Apple is the "other" vendor. I don't think they're actually are a lot of Apple fan is claiming that the one benevolent company should contr…

> I don't think they're actually are a lot of Apple fan is claiming that the one benevolent company should control everything as you posited earlier your post.

Not of course directly, as that would sound obviously fanatical, but the walled garden is almost universally cited as the "best thing" about iOS compared to more open platforms like Android.

This recent article in MacWorld invokes it at least five times, saying it makes iPhone more secure, more private, more user-friendly, more uniform, more polished etc:

http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/iphone/iphone-vs-android-5...

Those are all magnificent adjectives, and unquestionably makes the Apple user's life great. (And surely then, if Google wants to make life great for Android users, they are perfectly entailed to it as well.)

But from 3rd party developer's perspective, I can assure the more open platform is better. Google is enhancing the experience for stock Android users, but if you don't like it you can write and publish a competing search engine or browser. On iOS, you don't have a chance to replace the browser, and I bet had Apple actually developed a search engine of their own, like Microsoft with Bing, you'd never been even able to use Google on an iPhone..

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#255

Post by cacarr »

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…

FWIW, you do get a link on the AMP page to the canonical URL now.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#256

Post by MBCook »

tlrobinson wrote: post #216
MBCook wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a single tap on the status bar (where the clock is). It works almost anywhere in iOS there's a long scrolling thing.

No, in Mobile Safari if the address bar isn't visible you have to tap twice, once to show the address bar and once to scroll to the top. It is a single tap in most other apps though.

Oh, ok, I get you now.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#257

Post by inopinatus »

Retric wrote: post #243
inopinatus wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get identical results from DDG and Bing, and that isn't surprising because DDG's search backend is Bing.

I really don't ex: "ice cream calories" share several but not all sites and use a different order for those they share, which just suggests similar algorithms. PS: DDG redirected image searches to bing, but not generic searches. Which honestly seems reasonable as doing image search well is incredibly hard, with minimal payoffs.

Nope, for that search I once again got the same results in the same order.

It sounds like Bing is personalizing your results either by location or by adtech tracking, which is kinda antithetical to the point of DDG.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#258

Post by MBCook »

kbenson wrote: post #252
MBCook wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's any irony here. You deployed something that worked horribly on iOS, you didn't offer a way to opt out, and when someone else put in a fix for your terrible UX that just happens to change everything else to the way your stuff currently works you use it to gloat and a guy who pointed out how terrible your UX was. Honestly this whole thing (AMP and your comment) come off arrogant as hell to me. I l…

Well, they deployed normal HTML5, which because of how the page was defined happened to expose a weird interaction in how iOS performed some actions. They thought it was a bug in iOS and treated it as such. Getting called out as assholes for doing what they thought was the right thing (and by someone that was wrong on the facts to boot) probably rankled a bit. Calling out Gruber as both wrong and in addition so wrong…

They didn't explicitly set the behavior that way, but they deployed it knowing that WAS the behavior. And they didn't bother to change it or give anyone an option to turn it off or do something else making everyone on iOS suffer since they started pushing AMP.

They could've just as easily pushed you to a new page which contain the AMP content and wasn't an iframe, thus leaving all the standard feel and gestures working. Instead they choose to go along with what they were doing on android even though it was severely sub optimal on iOS.

I think choosing to do that WAS arrogant.

They made Google significantly harder to use as an iOS user because they didn't care and gave us no option to try and fix it.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#259

Post by pdimitar »

manigandham wrote: post #90

HTML is already fast. It's the stuff that's added to the page that slows it down, and we already have plenty of standards, techniques and solutions to make sites faster. AMP is just an alternate HTML framework that prevents certain things, that's all. Not sure why everyone is so eager to opt-in to a less flexible system instead of fixing their existing web presence. All it does is increase the amount of time and reso…

I am on your side -- just chiming in to share my observations.

To 99% of the businesses I worked with, software development is a singular expense. It's treated like buying a tractor for the farm. Hell, even farming equipment is more generously funded by the buyers for possible future expenses (compared to most software development) -- maintenance, repairs, parts that periodically need replacement, fuel.

For one reason or another, most businesses treat software development like buying a socket wrench from the local store and never even thinking of spending another penny on the developed product in the future. They expect it to run perfectly forever.

It's a sad state of affairs.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#260

Post by nialv7 »

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.…

Ever heard about RSS? ;)
Post reply on HN