Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Please Make Google AMP Optional

alexkras.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#71

Post by andars »

learntofly wrote: post #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.

I also use a iPhone that is a few years old. My experience has been that Google sends me to AMP pages in Safari and scrolling literally doesn't work. It just does that springy thing (as if there is no more content) on both top and bottom.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#72

Post by endorphone »

jeffbax wrote: post #58
endorphone wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

but Apple isn't commandeering the content itself like Google is

Content authors voluntarily publish their content in AMP form, so it doesn't seem fair to say that they commandeer anything: AMP is a subset of HTML intended for a fast mobile experience, and if you decide to take part you publish flags allowing Google to cache it. Google isn't unilaterally converting content to AMP.

The core argument against AMP primarily seems to be a fear that users will actually prefer AMP content. Which is ultimately rather anti-user.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#73

Post by tyingq »

mattmanser wrote: post #56
teraflop wrote: post #41

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 still don't understand why Reddit signed up

Sign up, or face the reduced google referral traffic as AMP-only carousel results push the organic results below the fold.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#74

Post by bo1024 »

RhodesianHunter wrote: post #42
bo1024 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Given that most of the web has Google analytics installed, I'm pretty sure all of the above is happening with or without amp.

I just want to mention (1) I view this as a bad thing and think we ought to try to move away from it; (2) I whitelist javascript so at least not all of the above is happening to me, and I think we ought to move toward all users having the tools and competence to do the same.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#75

Post by endorphone »

holografix wrote: post #66
endorphone wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You should really be careful of sourcing your news on fb, you're being spoon fed the news fb's algos want you to see.

I mean that I subscribe to the feeds of the media that I find useful, not that I follow their hot topics or suggested feeds.

And many of those media sites use Instant Articles (Facebook's AMP) and honestly I've found that I greatly prefer them, because it really sucks to click a story and have an abomination that grinds my device to a halt, starts a hidden autoplay video, etc. The same forces are at play: Controlling sites that destroy the web by making it such a miserable experience.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#76

Post by abrowne »

floatboth wrote: post #62
abrowne wrote: post #52

I've never actually seen AMP "in the wild". Is it because my only mobile browsing is with Firefox on Android?

Yeah, same. Firefox Nightly Android + DuckDuckGo, but sometimes I do use Google, still haven't found an AMP page.

I do use Google, although I don't search for news much. I usually find NYT, Guardian etc articles from their homepages.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#77

Post by myth_buster »

omot wrote: post #3

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

Goes against the notion of decentralized web.

The content that user gets on their browser is cached content hosted on Google's servers.

The URL that is shown in the location bar is `www.google.com/amp/`.

The rapid adoption is primarily due to fear of being left behind in Google's search ranking.

As the blog states, it drives mobile views away from the site whose content is being shown (some call it stealing).

On occasions I've seen more "Suggested Content" on an AMP page than the actual site.

From what I've read, AMP came as a response to Facebook's instant articles not primarily driven from user needs.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#78

Post by tyingq »

izacus wrote: post #68
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have hard time sympathizing with people who made the web a horrible blinking ad and malware laden experience for everyone. Especially when they're complaining about something that brings actually content and performance forward again.

That's the trojan horse though. Google pushes the performance aspects of AMP, when I suspect that's not the killer feature for them. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14529605

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#79

Post by endorphone »

myth_buster wrote: post #67
endorphone wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP This is certainly not true. The reason no many content creators and publishers moved to AMP is to not hurt their SEO. If you check most of the AMP articles targeted to publishers, it's addressed as get on the AMP wagon now or else you are doomed when Google starts ranking AMP pages higher.

>This is certainly not true.

Oh but it's entirely true. If you buy the conspiracies and allusions of the anti-AMP crowd, there should be some sort of citation you can leverage. As is, the primary real concern among those who denounce AMP is that users will prefer it. Which is a pretty bizarre thing to fight against.

Post reply on HN