AMP is bad and anyone who's invested in it should feel shameful for making the internet a worse place.
Because websites loading 10mb of useless Javascript is "good" internet?
Please Make Google AMP Optional
111–120 of 457 posts
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#112AMP is bad and anyone who's invested in it should feel shameful for making the internet a worse place.
Because websites loading 10mb of useless Javascript is "good" internet?
How else can I ask you to enable push notifications the first time I see you, then ask if you want to sign up for my newsletter when your mouse moves up off the page?
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#113The author's argument against AMP comes down to "I don’t know why I do it, but for some reason it just doesn’t feel “right” to me to consume the content through the AMP. It feels slightly off". This is... not a strong argument. The AMP saga has pretty clearly shown that users care about content while Web developers only care about URLs and what goes over the wire. This is a huge disconnect. It doesn't help that many…
You're being downvoted but you're absolutely right, this article is just weak and it's only popular because it voices a popular opinion, but does a very bad job at justifying it.
I fully agree that it should be optional and people who dislike it should be allowed to disable it. But as you mention, the author provide absolutely no real argument other than "it feels wrong".
All user studies so far show that it's a net positive, and I'd rather stick to real data than feelings or anectodes.
I personally love it, but I also agree that those who don't should be allowed to disable it.
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#114Earlier 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.
>Google is taking the content and serving it themselves.
How is Google taking the content? Isn't it the creator that is publishing their content using AMP?
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#115anyone from the project? wanted to test out but it looks like the create link is dead: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/create/
I went through the ampproject.org homepage and reached this docs/tutorial link: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/tutorials/create
Seems like the link you found is outdated.
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#116Google 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 l…
>Google Now Launcher (now the default launcher on Android)
This is not the default launcher on Android. Each OEM has their own launcher. It's also not even the default launcher in AOSP for obvious reasons.
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#117Use bing?
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#118There's a lot of complaint about Google AMP and Facebook Instant Articles, e.g. walled garden, anti-open-web and whatnot.
Here's something simpler from a non-developer, average-consumer point of view. I recently began taking BART to work daily (new job). For those who don't know, BART is Bay Area's subway system, and (at least on the east bay side) cell reception is notoriously spotty.
When I'm on the train, which includes 2 hours of my day everyday (unfortunately), I'd be browsing on say Facebook, and look at links that my friends post. Instant articles almost always load successfully (and quickly) and external links to actual sites almost always fails to load or loads insanely slowly.
Yes, when you're at home or in the city with good mobile reception, these things make no sense and you'd rather hit the original site directly. Give them their ad revenue, etc. to support them, right. But for the average consumers who actually have problems like slow internet (like the average joe who rides public transportation and wants to read on their phone), things like AMP and Instant Articles actually help. I can only imagine outside of silicon valley (where I live), how much more significant of a problem slow internet/slow mobile data actually is.
P.S. I don't work at Google or Facebook, and I know this sounds like propaganda, not to mention this is exactly what they would like to tell you as the "selling points" of these features, in order to continue building their walled garden empires. Fully aware of it, but I did want to bring up why they exist and why I even actually like them.
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#119I suggest stop using google search altogether. https://duckduckgo.com/ is an excellent search engine and its trivial to make a google search via `!g` prefix when you are not finding what you are looking for.
Tried it for like 3 hours and got angry about how bad it is.
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#120There's a lot of complaint about Google AMP and Facebook Instant Articles, e.g. walled garden, anti-open-web and whatnot. Here's something simpler from a non-developer, average-consumer point of view. I recently began taking BART to work daily (new job). For those who don't know, BART is Bay Area's subway system, and (at least on the east bay side) cell reception is notoriously spotty. When I'm on the train, which in…
Yeah, but maybe there's a better way to get you your nice BART outcome, you know? I think that's really part of the pushback here. We haven't really given social permission for Google to convert the web to AMP by force.