Live data from Hacker News

Please Make Google AMP Optional

alexkras.com

11–20 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#11
post #5
post #3

I never really understood why google amp is bad. Can anyone explain the reason why people think its ethically bad?

Not really an expert, but I don't see any good in strengthening Google's monoculture.

Plus pageviews are done on Google's servers, so Bing doesn't know which website has many views and which doesn't.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#12
post #7
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really an expert, but I don't see any good in strengthening Google's monoculture.

If that's the argument everyone should boycott all Google products.

Very true, but you can start with the egregious violations such as AMP.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#13
post #3

I never really understood why google amp is bad. Can anyone explain the reason why people think its ethically bad?

Because the disadvantages (vendor lock-in, not as open, etc) outweigh the advantages (lighter pages, which you can just do without AMP anyway).

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#14
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how do you plan to do this when no mobile browsers suppport extensions?

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/

So my statement wasn't completely accurate but there still is no support for iOS. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#15

Google search doesn't really have many options like this, and I'd be shocked if they added this one. But given the URL format, it should be trivial for a browser extensions to rewrite links or requests from AMP pages to the original. I bet it already exists.

And how do you plan to do this when no mobile browsers suppport extensions?

[deleted]

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#16
post #3

I never really understood why google amp is bad. Can anyone explain the reason why people think its ethically bad?

Because the disadvantages (vendor lock-in, not as open, etc) outweigh the advantages (lighter pages, which you can just do without AMP anyway).

But people don't, that's the point of AMP.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#17

I'm trying to imagine the uproar if Apple had done AMP instead of Google. Somehow AMP has some staunch defenders, but everything, and I mean everything about how it's been approached has felt very anti-web and pro-Google. The overall concept may be sound, but the implementation, and the inability to escape it, has significantly hurt my opinion of Google. In fact, I no longer use Google's search because of it.

Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content/ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution.

This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stealing their content because they had enabled a Wordpress plug-in haphazardly).

If Google blacklisted non-AMP content, or even just deranked it, sure there's an argument, but as of yet this notion that it's some content theft is quite strange.

Google's intention with AMP is obvious, and obviously not anti-web: Facebook is becoming a primary medium where users are accessing a lot of content. I personally read all news via Facebook now, where they've integrated it heavily with a built-in browser and now instant articles (Facebook's AMP). Compared to this, the traditional web is just an obnoxious mess, not because of the web but because of the abuse that AMP restricts.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#19
post #3

I never really understood why google amp is bad. Can anyone explain the reason why people think its ethically bad?

I'm not commenting on "ethics", but I can say why I dislike AMP as a user: I want to interact directly with a website, not through some third party. I especially don't want that third party observing my interactions or collecting data about them. I also don't want to allow that third party to run code (javascript) on my computer.

As a website designer (barely), basically the same reasons: I don't want my site under control of a third party, I don't want my users to have to run javascript to view my site, and I don't want them to have to consent to (possibly) being tracked. Most ironically, my site probably accomplishes more of the stated AMP goals (due to being pure html and light) than it would when AMPed up.

Quick edit: I also worry it can contribute to breaking or obfuscating hyperlinks, which is similar to the issue raised in this article. Having hyperlinks work correctly is crucial to the design of the web. I had similar problems when sites like Google search started making their search links redirect to some intermediate site before going to the actual link, and back when I used Google search I had an extension that removed them so I could e.g. right-click and copy the link.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#20
post #3

I never really understood why google amp is bad. Can anyone explain the reason why people think its ethically bad?

Because the disadvantages (vendor lock-in, not as open, etc) outweigh the advantages (lighter pages, which you can just do without AMP anyway).

how does AMP provide vendor lock-in?
Post reply on HN