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

I decided to disable AMP on my site

alexkras.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 360 posts

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#281

Post by heapoverflow »

forgotpwtomain wrote: post #231
sturmen wrote: post #201

There's a lot of backlash against AMP on principle, which I agree with and support. However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. I think that AMP is a stepping stone that shows the u…

> I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, Firefox on mobile supports extensions, so you can use UBlock Origin / UMatrix. Also the built-in reader mode makes most sites a much better experience.

> Also the built-in reader mode makes most sites a much better experience.

True, but it doesn't improve page load times.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#282

Post by mnm1 »

chefandy wrote: post #236
technofiend wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right but man you get a lot of that browsing with noscript. Reddit is loads faster with noscript blocking all the cruft they wrap around that site and that's not even one of the clickbaity sites.

That's true but it's a band-aid fix. We need to figure out how people can browse the web efficiently while ensuring websites are financially feasible, and everybody simply blocking javascript is not a financially feasible solution. I'd be more than happy to pay cash for a lot of stuff rather than have to deal with tracking/obnoxious ads, but I think the web would be a much worse place if all non-advertisement content…

"We need to figure out how people can browse the web efficiently while ensuring websites are financially feasible"

I'm trying to figure out how to make JS blocking available to normal end users. Why should users have to put up with the current shitty situation when a simple, technical solution is available that doesn't involve Google or anyone else whose intentions are not aligned with users' intentions? The main challenge is fixing the UI so that it can be used by the least computer literate users.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#283

Post by zeep »

People should also stop making Android apps whenever a website is perfectly suited, but of course that won't happen.

A webview is a bit like AMP but it is still better then a true native Android app (when it is easily avoidable).

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#285

Post by brians »

mkj wrote: post #110
mondoshawan wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You remember Akamai, right? AMP is just another CDN. Back in the 90s, when Akamai was fighting to establish themselves, you'd see tons of fetches from hosts like a123.d.akamai.com on big name properties like CNN. Nowadays it's pretty much hidden, and pervasive. Google is attempting to entrench a reverse proxy cache the same way Akamai has for years. AMP is nothing new. The only difference here is that they make it ob…

No, akamai didn't change page layout/content.

https://www.akamai.com/us/en/resources/front-end-optimizatio...

Opt-in by the publisher, of course.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#286

Post by TeMPOraL »

coldtea wrote: post #268
TeMPOraL wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I said many times in discussions about ad-blockers - I think that content that can't exist in a non-ad-supported way can stop existing, we'll all be better off. Almost anything that's valuable on-line is either a marketing expense or done pro bono. Also, I didn't mean I want a Google-dominated reality. Only said that this particular feature - content in search results - is a step in the right direction; it showcas…

> Almost anything that's valuable on-line is either a marketing expense or done pro bono. So, like Netflix?

s/Almost anything/Almost anything available for free/

Netflix is a subscription service; I pay them, they stream me movies, the contract is straightforward.

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#287

Post by enos_feedler »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #242
boramalper wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant that you could achieve the same by reducing the bloat, applying the best practises etc. To be fair, Google has been encouraging people to do so through the PageSpeed suite for quite a long time... What I found unfair about AMP is Google preloading your AMP-enabled webpage. So that even if your not-AMP-enabled page is equally efficient, an AMP-enabled page would feel faster because Google preloads it in the ba…

Right, but users don't care about the reasons why it's faster. They just know it's faster. Hence they use AMP, and AMP gains traction. We can say it's unfair, but that's life. If we want to defeat AMP, we have to beat it at its own game. That requires us to come up with an alternative that's equal or faster than AMP. And clearly we've failed as developers to push for non-bloated solutions. It might be possible to cre…

Isn't AMP itself just a standard way of stripping bloat from websites? You could take the AMP library, include it in your web page and do anything you want with it.

What is the precise element of AMP you are trying to beat?

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#288

Post by enos_feedler »

sturmen wrote: post #201

There's a lot of backlash against AMP on principle, which I agree with and support. However, as a non-principled web consumer, I think AMP pages are 10x better than the ad-filled, slow as molasses, jump-around-as-JavaSript-loads, video autoplaying, 'stories you might like' suggested bullshit, auto-loading 20MB heaps of steaming garbage that current news sites are. I think that AMP is a stepping stone that shows the u…

Why not just fork AMP, call it openAMP and then rally around a roadmap that is more fair for the web platform at large (instead of just Google's)?

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#289

Post by aeromusek »

> I am really surprised that big publishers are not bothered by this fact as much as I am.

I suspect they are just as bothered, but don't really have a choice about this either. Placement on the search results page is so valuable that Google holds a really big stick when introducing new 'standards' like this.

Just look how little of a typical mobile SERP is real 'organic' content now: http://imgur.com/UhNZvL2

Re: I decided to disable AMP on my site

#290

Post by ihuman »

mikeash wrote: post #271
IshKebab wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> scrolling can be wonky Last time this came up someone linked to a Google employee submitting a bug report to Apple about the scrolling. Their response was "that's how it's supposed to work - the rest of the system is wrong and we will fix that". So iPhone users might not have much choice anyway soon! Kind of reminds me of how terrible mouse acceleration is on OSX, and how Apple gradually removed all the options for…

I'd be shocked if Apple's official stance was that tapping the status bar to scroll to the top of a page is wrong and should be fixed.

The person you are replying to is talking about the scroll speed.
Post reply on HN