Live data from Hacker News

Please Make Google AMP Optional

alexkras.com

51–60 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#51
post #36
post #3

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

>Can anyone explain the reason why people think its ethically bad This is just one of many reasons, but try this on a mobile phone. Go to Google and search for "Trump" Note what choices you have to pick from without excessive scrolling. They all end in either ads or Google urls. Click one of the featured stories in the carousel, almost guaranteed to be an AMP site. Seems to be a prerequisite to sit in the carousel. L…

what is this right-swipe business? You swipe and it, what, just takes you to a page that the makers of the current page think you should read next in your infinite time-sink staring at your phone‽

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#53
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Can anyone explain the reason why people think its ethically bad This is just one of many reasons, but try this on a mobile phone. Go to Google and search for "Trump" Note what choices you have to pick from without excessive scrolling. They all end in either ads or Google urls. Click one of the featured stories in the carousel, almost guaranteed to be an AMP site. Seems to be a prerequisite to sit in the carousel. L…

what is this right-swipe business? You swipe and it, what, just takes you to a page that the makers of the current page think you should read next in your infinite time-sink staring at your phone‽

Well, in this case the makers of the previous page (Google) are deciding what right swipe on the current page (Washington Post) does.

It certainly makes it clear that the content owner of an AMP page is not the page owner.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#54
Google Search on Mobile is no longer a web search engine that hyperlinks to the resulting page, but rather an search-integrated newsreader that loads itself when you click on a result that's marked with AMP. This is understandably a big change from how things used to be, but it isn't going to get better anytime soon.

After all, most people on mobile spend their time inside apps, probably from some Google competitor like Facebook. Within these apps, they click on links, which increasingly load inside webviews; the framing app collects info on where people go, and uses this to sell targeted advertising. Facebook is a king in this space, and is now the second largest server of internet display ads, after Google.

Google's assault on Facebook's encroachment is twofold: drive people to Google's apps like the Google Now Launcher (now the default launcher on Android) or the Google app present in older versions of Android and available for iOS, and deploy the same content-framing techniques from their own search engine webpage on mobile user-agents, where the competition is most fierce, and they can also position it as legitimate UX improvement -- which, to their credit, is largely true, as bigpub content sites on mobile were usually usability nightmares and cesspits of ads.

I understand that the author and quite a few others are peeved at this behavior and that there's no way of turning it off. But it's really not in Google's best interest to even offer the option, because then many people will just turn it off, encouraged by articles like the author's own last year where he was caught off-guard and before he gained a more nuanced appreciation for what's really going on.

The bottom line is this: Google is inseparable from its ad-serving and adtech business -- it is after all how they make most of their money -- so if you are bothered by their attempts to safeguard their income stream from competitors who have a much easier time curating their own walled garden, you should cease using Google Search on Mobile. There are other alternatives, who may not be as thorough at search, but that's the cost of the tradeoff.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#55
post #39
post #26

AMP is bad and anyone who's invested in it should feel shameful for making the internet a worse place.

Internet being turned into a shitty place by bad developers and advertisers is why AMP exists in the first place.

You just said "Jimmy pissed in the pool, so who cares if Timmy shits in it?"

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#56
post #3

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

Leaving aside the lock-in issues, AMP causes me minor annoyances more often than it helps. For instance, when I open a search result from a site like Reddit, I get a static logged-out view, instead of the normal one that obeys my preferences. And if I want to copy the link, it takes a few extra taps to get the original one.

I still don't understand why Reddit signed up, it's a terrible experience for their users. I commonly search 'reddit x' when I want an opinion and know there will be a sub Reddit, but now Reddit have made that use case incredibly bad by enabling AMP.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#58

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 stea…

I don't think its comparable to Apple. Apple is trying to make the user experience of existing content better (where it is located)

Google is taking the content and serving it themselves.

The problem is sites being slow in the first place, but Apple isn't commandeering the content itself like Google is by creating a mode where the browser can enhance legibility of any article.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leaving aside the lock-in issues, AMP causes me minor annoyances more often than it helps. For instance, when I open a search result from a site like Reddit, I get a static logged-out view, instead of the normal one that obeys my preferences. And if I want to copy the link, it takes a few extra taps to get the original one.

I still don't understand why Reddit signed up, it's a terrible experience for their users. I commonly search 'reddit x' when I want an opinion and know there will be a sub Reddit, but now Reddit have made that use case incredibly bad by enabling AMP.

I'd imagine a notoriously cash-strapped site like Reddit is enthusiastic that Google is willing to offload traffic originating from Google Search on Mobile to Google's own AMP CDN. This helps incidental visitors still consume Reddit content, while real Reddit users interacting with real website or through a Reddit app are still getting the normal experience. This arrangement only really frays at edge cases, where a logged-in Reddit user uses an external search like Google to look something up.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#60
I use an older iPhone as my primary internet device when at home.

From google news, the top hits are served through amp and I lose about 1/10 of my screen area to a pointless blue "bar" underneath safari's address bar. This loss of screen space is the only reason I object to amp.

Post reply on HN