Live data from Hacker News

Please Make Google AMP Optional

alexkras.com

241–250 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#241
Towards the end of AOL (early 2000s), they used to take all content that you visited through their browsers and re-compress and sometimes remove things from the sites. This sometimes really ruined image color, layouts, style etc.

The agency I worked at it was a huge problem because back then clients and business people still used AOL and would see the jacked up versions of their site. There was literally nothing you could do, they did it to small and large sites without abandon.

AMP reminds me a bit of that type of setup with AOL re-compressing and crunching down sites through their network. I agree with Google on doing this for email for security but not necessarily websites. AMP to me is quite annoying and in general a bad move.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#242
What really gets me about the AMP Cache (AMP itself is fine by me) is that it doesn't actually make anything faster. If you time the difference in download speed between the real website AMPd page and AMP Cache URL the difference is almost nothing in 99% of cases. And neither page load gives you that magical instant hit you get on Google's SERPs.

The speed difference on SERPs is the background downloading and (possibly) pre rendering of AMP pages. This functionality could easily be added to browsers, keeping people on their own websites and Google not having control over the content.

We already have but how about adding http://amp.newswebsite.com/article/etc." />.

This would absolutely give all of the benefits of AMP Cache without Google embracing and extending the web. It's also much simpler to integrate, every single site can choose to benefit from this (not just SERPs) and I don't end up accidentally sending AMP Cache urls to my friends on mobile.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"on mobile" these days is a device with a quad core, 3GB of RAM, and a 1080p + screen. I don't want your stupid "mobile" website that doesn't work, your cut-down "optimized" walled-garden product. I just want the normal web, in all its glory.

"on mobile" these days can be anything from a 3'' device with 512MB RAM to the device you mention. It's very easy to assume that everyone has the latest device in an affluent society that doesn't have much of a problem buying the latest and greatest, but I can assure you this isn't the case in most of the world. You're failing to see that Google is used everywhere in the world and not all countries (in fact, very few…

> a 3'' device with 512MB RAM ... 2G

Such luxuries. I spent several years reading web pages on a 33MHz 386DX with 8MB of RAM. Yes, Netscape took a while to start (had to wait for the rest of Win 3.1 to swap out), and downloading images was always somewhere between "slow" and "don't bother" even with the glorious 14.4kbps of a fancy V.32bis modem[1]. However, it still only took a few (15-20) seconds to fetch an article and render it.

The slowness started when websites decided it was fashionable to add a few dozen unnecessary HTTP requests to fetch megabytes of Javascript. The bloat is self inflicted, and websites do not need Google's help to make their pages small and fast. Unfortunately, many pages value the bloated ad loaders and trackers, several types of spyware ("analytics"), and their favorite "framework" more than they value the actual content of the page or the reader's experience. Google is happy to pretend the problem isn't self-inflicted when it gives them more tracking data.

Yes, it's important to remember that there will always be a wide variation in the User Agent. That's one of the reasons well-designed websites progressively enhance the heavier features. Websites can do this on their own - just like they did 10/15/20 years ago. An over-engineered caching system isn't necessary. Do you want a future where the internet retains some of it's interactive, decentralized qualities? Or do you want a fancier version of Cable TV, mostly controlled by Google et al?

[1] On weekends I was stuck with the old 2400bps V.22bis hand-me-down.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#244
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that, but what is right-swipe supposed to or expected to do? Why would people be right-swiping ever?

Many reasons. A popular one would be to flip through a gallery of photos related to the story. That one's VERY common. Also, I missed mentioning the [X] button on the AMP header banner. I bet that most end users think that [X] button should make the AMP banner disappear, while leaving the page content there. Pretty common pattern, like for the EU cookie warning. That's not what it does, though. Back to the "right swi…

Ok, sure. Going through a slide-show makes total sense. So, you're saying that there's no normal behavior on a plain website for swiping right (yes? I don't use mobile much myself), but AMP adds a Google-centric swipe-right function regardless of whether there would otherwise be no swipe-right function or some other expected one. Am I understanding now?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#246
post #151

Users: I like AMP pages, they're fast! HN: But the open Internet! Users: What's that? HN: Normal websites! Users: Like...the really slow ones? With all the annoying popovers? And pages that take forever to load? And for some reason cause my fancy new phone to slow to a crawl? HN: Well, those websites should rewrite their entire codebase to be faster. Users: That doesn't help me, though. HN: Trust in the free market!…

Your hypothetical there assumes that AMP actually works well. My experience is it's got painful usability issues at least on android chrome. The worst one I see all the time is scrolling down to actually read the AMP page frequently results in the page closing, returning you to results. Fast is good, but at least it ought to be a good user experience. I used to use google news a lot, but i totally abandoned it after…

I have an excellent user experience with AMP on my phone using Chrome.

I agree with the fundamental and structural concerns associated with it though.

Is there anything you're doing on your connection that's unusual?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#247
post #151

Users: I like AMP pages, they're fast! HN: But the open Internet! Users: What's that? HN: Normal websites! Users: Like...the really slow ones? With all the annoying popovers? And pages that take forever to load? And for some reason cause my fancy new phone to slow to a crawl? HN: Well, those websites should rewrite their entire codebase to be faster. Users: That doesn't help me, though. HN: Trust in the free market!…

As a user, I like the "fast" part, but I absolutely hate the user experience. I haven't quite figured out how Back works when you're in the "AMP experience", but it's definitely not how it's supposed to work in a browser.

it takes you back. it's the same thing the back button does in every website in every browser. what do you expect it to do?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#248

At 43yo I probably belong to the older folks on HN, but those modern devices all of us carry in our pockets to me seem just absolutely incredible and magical. They probably can run around machines that took up whole rooms just a few decades ago. At the risk of sounding like an old fart (I probably do), I fail to understand this frustration of normal mobile users with the so-called slowness of their mobile experience.…

Nitpick but your request is most likely not going to space. You're going to a cell tower that's at most a mile away from you, and that tower is probably linked with fiber and copper to all the routers on the net. Even if for some reason you go through a satellite link it's in earth orbit and not technically 'outer space'. It's still pretty magical but at the end of the day it's just a fancier wireless telegraph.

The person you're replying to just used the space quote as an example of saying "hey, this is frickin' amazing and you're complaining because it takes a second to load‽" And the space part is amazing when it's space and the non-space internet stuff in your pocket is amazing too, and let's not forget it.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#249
post #151

Users: I like AMP pages, they're fast! HN: But the open Internet! Users: What's that? HN: Normal websites! Users: Like...the really slow ones? With all the annoying popovers? And pages that take forever to load? And for some reason cause my fancy new phone to slow to a crawl? HN: Well, those websites should rewrite their entire codebase to be faster. Users: That doesn't help me, though. HN: Trust in the free market!…

Your hypothetical there assumes that AMP actually works well. My experience is it's got painful usability issues at least on android chrome. The worst one I see all the time is scrolling down to actually read the AMP page frequently results in the page closing, returning you to results. Fast is good, but at least it ought to be a good user experience. I used to use google news a lot, but i totally abandoned it after…

[deleted]

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#250
post #21

I 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.

DDG is a wrapper on top of Bing. Maybe just skip the middleman and use Bing instead?

Then you'd get bubbled and tracked just like if you use Google, although you'd avoid AMP. DDG uses Bing and other sources, it's not literally just a wrapping of Bing.
Post reply on HN