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

261–270 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#261

Post by corobo »

sintaxi wrote: 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.

Having been camping in a field for the past week but still needing my internet fix I think I'm going to start giving ddg a real chance (still hate the name though) until Google gives me a setting to disable AMP results

I get the idea behind AMP but it's just far too late to the game for Google to be pushing it so heavily. Back on 2G internet I used Opera Mini, I don't use that now because I just don't need it anymore

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#262

Post by beefield »

baconner wrote: post #169
ender7 wrote: 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…

> 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

I use "request desktop site" on google news to get that working properly on my android.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#263

Post by corobo »

amelius wrote: post #122
65827 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved off of gmail a few months ago, pretty happy about that but man duckduckgo fucking suuuucks. Really wish there was a nonprofit (with a strong privacy policy) wikipedia like .org solution that provided good results.

What mail service are you using now?

Not OP but I recently switched to Fastmail myself. It's web interface is a bit bland but you can use IMAP/SMTP and your device's built in client if that's an issue

Liking it so far, really liking being able to attach my domains natively to my inbox

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#264

Post by amelius »

GrinningFool wrote: post #142
amelius wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using Android with Chrome, and there is no option to change the search engine to DDG :/ The only options are: Google, Bing, AOL, Yahoo, Ask.

If you go to ddg in chrome they provide a link that will add ddg as a search provider.

It works, thanks!

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#265

Post by amelius »

reactor wrote: post #143
amelius wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm using Android with Chrome, and there is no option to change the search engine to DDG :/ The only options are: Google, Bing, AOL, Yahoo, Ask.

I have been looking to do the same, but so far no luck.

See comment above for a fix.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#266

Post by IanCal »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #228
ShellGh0st wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is grabbing a normal website and completely, utterly breaking it. Have you ever actually tried to use an AMP page, share it, etc? AMP is garbage, and honestly whoever signed off on it shouldn't have a position at Google or wider tech community.

It's the creator of the content that creates the AMP page and publishes it on AMP.

That's not quite accurate. If you make an AMP page, Google will cache it. Google caching it is not optional.

https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq#can-i-stop-conte...

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#267

Post by onion2k »

themodelplumber wrote: post #120
godot wrote: post #118

There'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.

We haven't really given social permission for Google to convert the web to AMP by force.

Google is not the problem here.

As a user this choice is not yours; you get what the publisher wants to publish. If a publisher chooses to build an AMP version of their content they are telling Google that's what they want you to see when you click through to a story they've published.

We, the users, don't get a say in this beyond choosing not to view the content from publishers who use AMP.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#268

Post by jorvi »

sorenstoutner wrote: post #191

My experience is that all the advantages of AMP can be had by disabling JavaScript while browsing. And this comes with none of the disadvantages of ceding even more control to companies like Google and Facebook. In my opinion, JavaScript should be disabled by default and only enabled for specific tasks or websites. Not finding exactly what I was looking for in any other browser, I eventually created Privacy Browser o…

uMatrix or uBlock (in advanced mode) can largely accomplish the same in a simpler way. However, in my experience, if you go the 'default deny' route against scripts, the spread is about 33/33/33, with 33% of the pages working perfectly, 33% breaking in small ways, and 33% completely borking up. Yes, you can then add the necessary scripts to a whitelist, but it gets tiresome to constantly have to 'fix' sites.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#269

Post by IanCal »

endorphone wrote: post #17
epistasis wrote: post #6

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…

There are two things here that I feel are being conflated.

There's the AMP library and format. That is a huge part of what you're talking about with speed, annoying popups, etc. It's an open source library and people can use it or not.

Then there's Google grabbing all of the AMP pages, rewriting them and putting them on a Google domain.

You cannot opt out of the second part. There's not a lot of abuse I can think of that's being restricted by this, and it feels like it would be a simple problem to fix.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#270

Post by corobo »

falcodream wrote: post #237

If my regular page loads as fast as the AMP page, to within some margin, could Google drop the AMP version and link directly to me? It would make AMP a tool for improving the web rather than replacing it.

You could just not enable AMP if your site loads faster without it
Post reply on HN