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

271–280 of 489 posts

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#271

Post by MBCook »

vesinisa wrote: post #253
MBCook wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, sayin…

> But from 3rd party developer's perspective, I can assure the more open platform is better.

I'm not sure that follows.

But anyway, if being more open is a good thing then Google purposefully trying to shove everyone into their various products and ecosystems seems precisely the opposite of "open" to me.

I was never really a big fan of chrome but when you Google released it and the web started getting a lot better that was fine with me, it was even nice. Same thing with many of the other things they've done.

Now it seems to me like they often try and corral or cajole users into using other parts of their ecosystem by making other people stuff broken in unnecessary ways when you try and use one of their "open" products. It's starting to look very 90s Microsoft to me with a different spin on it. And that worries me. And they're big enough/powerful enough that they can get pretty far and do a lot of damage before it becomes extremely obvious to a lot of people.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#272

Post by ghughes »

polishTar wrote: post #68
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…

Just as a FYI, Bing is a really large supporter of the AMP project. “We started experimenting with AMP in our Bing App last May and have noticed that AMP pages load, on average, approximately 80% faster than non-AMP pages” says Marcelo De Barros, Group Engineering Manager in charge of the AMP integration at Bing. https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-...

It turns out that if you strip most of the JS bloat from a webpage and serve it from a fast CDN, the page loads way faster. Shocking stuff.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#273

Post by Pxtl »

Honestly? I've come to loathe the abysmal performance of the modern web so much that I'm ready to accept AMP. Half the reason I come to hacker News is that the site runs fast. And half the reason I comment before reading the article is because it doesn't.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#274

Post by bla2 »

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…

Sounds like Apple's underinvestment in mobile Safari makes it currently impossible to implement this well in web pages in iOS, and that the AMP team is working with Apple to fix their broken platform. I don't see how this isn't Apple's bug.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#275

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#276

Post by wmf »

tyingq wrote: post #227
Antrikshy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do you think Google wants to hijack the URL and add extra chrome? They don't. They want the absolute fastest performance which requires prerendering which requires hijacking the URL. (This seems like a bad tradeoff to everyone on HN.)

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#277

Post by wanda »

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…

Wouldn't this line of CSS:

    -webkit-overflow-scrolling: touch;
have addressed the issue?

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#278

Post by StudentStuff »

polishTar wrote: post #68
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…

Just as a FYI, Bing is a really large supporter of the AMP project. “We started experimenting with AMP in our Bing App last May and have noticed that AMP pages load, on average, approximately 80% faster than non-AMP pages” says Marcelo De Barros, Group Engineering Manager in charge of the AMP integration at Bing. https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-...

Why don't I see a significant difference then? The only thing I've noticed about AMP sites is the pain of trying to navigate them, alongside the dual top bars (reminds me of toolbars back in the day) and impaired functionality.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#279

Post by ejcx »

ghughes wrote: post #272
polishTar wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as a FYI, Bing is a really large supporter of the AMP project. “We started experimenting with AMP in our Bing App last May and have noticed that AMP pages load, on average, approximately 80% faster than non-AMP pages” says Marcelo De Barros, Group Engineering Manager in charge of the AMP integration at Bing. https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-...

It turns out that if you strip most of the JS bloat from a webpage and serve it from a fast CDN, the page loads way faster. Shocking stuff.

It's not shocking but AMP enforces it.

People talk a lot of trash about AMP, but until there's another solution that allows me to go to a news website and actually read it, I'm an AMP supporter.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#280

Post by tyingq »

wmf wrote: post #276
tyingq wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do you think Google wants to hijack the URL and add extra chrome? They don't. They want the absolute fastest performance which requires prerendering which requires hijacking the URL. (This seems like a bad tradeoff to everyone on HN.)

That extra chrome didn't even include a way to see the original URL until after much squealing. It did, however, include left/right swipe to other people's content. The MVP that rolled out fairly clearly shows who benefits.

An edge cache of an optimized page is plenty fast without preload. Images, in fact, can be preloaded cross domain if that is really needed.

You know it's a mess when the New York Times has to inject a "sorry this video doesn't work on AMP pages, visit our site" message on stories.

Post reply on HN