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

311–320 of 489 posts

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#311

Post by 65827 »

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 am kind of shocked to see this be the top comment on this story, I remember getting shit on thoroughly everywhere for daring to point out how awful this was back when it first came out, seems like people are FINALLY willing to be a bit more skeptical of Google's actual intentions given their shady and abusive track record.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#312

Post by makecheck »

grzm wrote: post #289
makecheck wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A way to disable it while seeing Google results is to start from DuckDuckGo but add "g!". This goes through a different Google interface that always returns normal links.

I believe you mean "!g". DuckDuckGo "macros" start with bang. https://duckduckgo.com/bang

They both work.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#313

Post by captainmuon »

EvilTerran wrote: post #94
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…

An idea I've been floating for a while is to have two HTML profiles in the future. Call it HTML6 document and HTML6 app.

HTML6 document is a restricted subset, similar to what you suggest. I would still allow complete design flexibility, and I might even allow a subset of JS, but only for presentation purposes. Definitely not turing complete, and no ajax etc.. Probably I wouldn't allow cross-origin resources with credentials. So you could include an image or stylesheet, but the browser would not send along cookies. What I'm aiming for is a replacement for PDF, something you could read on an ebook, etc.. Just a plain document.

On the other hand, I'd have HTML6 app to be able to use the complete web platform.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#314

Post by dzhiurgis »

ploxiln wrote: post #306
ejcx wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Such a solution has existed for at least a decade: ad blocker :)

+ reading mode in Safari helps a ton.

But still you are loading ton of unnecessary content. Ad blocking on iOS still sucks (no custom filters).

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#315

Post by dzhiurgis »

cramforce wrote: post #225
askafriend wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It feels like putting inertia control options in a browser was a big mistake in first place.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#316

Post by Buge »

ploxiln wrote: post #306
ejcx wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Such a solution has existed for at least a decade: ad blocker :)

Do ad blockers really solve the problems that this article criticizes AMP for? You've closed one bag of worms and opened another one. How can independent publishers live in an all adblock world? State publishers like criticized in the article might survive. You're again centralizing journalism, this time into the few organizations that can get their readers to pay a subscription.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#317

Post by paulddraper »

ploxiln wrote: post #306
ejcx wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Such a solution has existed for at least a decade: ad blocker :)

Ad blockers serve minified JS and CSS through a CDN?

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#318

Post by Buge »

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…

What are you talking about? Who is Gruber? And there is nothing in the article about scrolling.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#319

Post by Buge »

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…

You don't think there's any irony in the fact that Google noticed that Safari was behaving badly sometimes, and asked Apple to fix it, and Apple said "wow thanks for pointing that out, we're going to make it much more extreme". Google asked for one thing, and because of that was given the exact opposite. That's pretty much the definition of irony.

>a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.

Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web

#320

Post by wmf »

Buge wrote: post #318
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…

What are you talking about? Who is Gruber? And there is nothing in the article about scrolling.

The link was originally https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/05/20/gilbertson-amp which complains about scrolling.
Post reply on HN