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

411–420 of 457 posts

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#411

Post by seanwilson »

ciconia wrote: post #194

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.…

Mobiles might have fast CPUs but if you're on a slow mobile connection there's plenty of ways you can write web pages that will stall for many seconds before anything gets rendered.

Especially if you're on the move, having to wait around while a page loads some information you need now is frustrating. There's lots of statistics about how users will abandon websites that don't load quick enough.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#412

Post by codedokode »

IanCal wrote: post #269
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…

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…

Will not Google showing your pages on its domain decrease your visitor count and make your site less attractive to advertisers?

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#413

Post by codedokode »

tangue wrote: post #395
gub09 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that anyone can use an adblocker or Squid proxy filtering to block GoogleAnalytics, but if the site uses jquery from a Google CDN to render content, that cannot be blocked without making the site unusable. It's even worse if the Google CDN request is made with https, because then a redirection needs to be made inside the browser.

Websites using cdns should always use a server hosted backup, it's not that hard if (typeof jQuery == 'undefined') { document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='/serverHostedJquery.js' %3E%3C/script%3E")); }

Is not it better to serve scripts from your server? It gives you more control and you don't have to share your visitors data with Google. With external hosting you get more downtime, and in some countries Google servers are blocked so you get less visitors.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#415

Post by codedokode »

patrickaljord wrote: post #257
andy_ppp wrote: post #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 (possib…

> We already have but how about adding http://amp.newswebsite.com/article/etc." />. The goal of AMP is to improve the experience on mobile, making the client prerender instead of Google would be bad for your mobile device battery.

I think the goal of AMP is to keep user at Google website and better track his Internet usage history.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#416

Post by codedokode »

Spivak wrote: post #251
theWatcher37 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the problem is javascript

It's true of client side rendering in general. If you're targeting mobile and get most of your traffic from search results then you should be looking at aggressively lightweight sites. * Top bar with a damn small company logo and navigation links. Top bar does not follow the user down the page. Your logo isn't that cool and nobody is using your navigation links half way though an article. * No fancy or dynamic layout…

> Use text placeholders for images and use JS to load them at the request of the user.

Or fix browsers so they load the images lazily (which would break tracking pixels located at the bottom of a page).

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#417

Post by freyr »

b0rsuk wrote: post #359
freyr wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try going into Incognito Mode and searching from google.com. When I do that, I get pages, annoying, sucks, and conference . Actually, I get those same results in or out of Incognito Mode, but it's possible your search history is coloring your results.

Same results in and out of incognito mode :-|

Weird. I suppose results may depend on our geographical locations.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#418

Post by mh- »

andy_ppp wrote: post #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 (possib…

Prerender support has been (somewhat quietly) removed from Chrome as of M58.

https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/6210#issuecomme...

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/prere...

https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/blink...

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#419

Post by diydsp »

paulhebert wrote: post #402
qrbLPHiKpiux wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of another search engine alternative - a truly objective one. It used to be Google. Then they gained a tremendous amount of market share. Even an English language verb - googled. Now it's them. And I ask, now what?

Try out DuckDuckGo ( https://duckduckgo.com/ ). I've been using it for a few years and love it. They don't track you. They don't store your info. Plus, as far as I know they don't do anything besides search so they have no reason to not be objective.

I use DDG on all my devices at home and work. This whole thread has been a learning experience to me, because I never experience the various problems people have been reporting with AMP.

Perhaps my results could have been loading faster? I'm not willing to make a deal with the devil to find out. I'm pretty satisfied with what I have now.

Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional

#420

Post by macspoofing »

i336_ wrote: post #363
macspoofing wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The same for WebAssembly: use it if you like, but please don't make your actual content unnecessarily dependent on the use of services from these multinationals. WebAssembly is an open-standard.

It's EXEs and JARs for the Internet. Sure, it has a text format, but it's the equivalent of Lispified Java bytecode. ( https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/WebAssembly/Underst... (uninformative but current), http://loyc.net/2016/lesv3-and-wasm.html (2016, from when wasm wasn't finalized, but has some good concrete examples that look like the wasm in the first link)) With this being said, it may actually be easier…

>It's EXEs and JARs for the Internet.

It's bytecode. I'm not sure if it is a big downgrade from 100,000 lines of minified JS code.

>With this being said, it may actually be easier to figure out wasm than frameworkified JS since you can apply IDA-style reversing to it.

It may.

Post reply on HN