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

Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

thirtybees.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 159 posts

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#51

Post by dalore »

kuschku wrote: post #24
ucaetano wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its that AMP is borderline an anti-trust. And why is that? > More traffic without conversions generally does not help an e-commerce site. You should not be using AMP for e-commerce, at least not for anything but a static product page. Again, if you try to drive a nail with a hammer and it doesn't work, the fault isn't on the hammer, it's on you.

> And why is that? Because you only get a ranking boost if your page > contains a " rel="nofollow">https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"> tag inside their head tag. and > is allowed to be cached in the Google AMP cache

Yes, so your brochure site describing your product is an AMP page. But then a link to to the real ecommerce site to actually buy it.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#52

Post by thefalcon »

ucaetano wrote: post #9

The author seems to completely misunderstand the point of AMP. It was never designed or created for dynamic, interactive content, especially e-commerce. This is like complaining that a hammer is bad for driving screws.

There are many people out there demanding their eCommerce websites "get on AMP" ASAP. The author is performing a valuable service to employees of such people.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#53

Post by taytus »

Disclaimer: I'm working on ROBOAMP (an AMP generator)

AMP has limitations, like any piece of technology. Once you understand the limitations you should be able to plan your attack accordingly.

We are pre-launch but if you want early access and test our automatic generator please email me.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#54

Post by cobookman »

avaer wrote: post #50
godot wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if google made some machine verifiable guidelines for "light" webpages that would earn them this "icon". Linked from the "fat" page by some "link" meta tag. That is exactly what AMP is; with the exception (a huge one, I know) that Google also then caches the page on their server and serves it from a google.com host.

For Google, the hijack is the prime feature; AMP is the PR vehicle that makes it swallow. AMP could have been done without the huge exception, but then Google couldn't profit from it.

I think it's also about prefetching amp pages from Google search. You can't do that without the cdn.

Sure google could modify chrome to allow this and not block it. but you'd be asking for even more technical blockers. And you'd have something that only works for a small portion of the web.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#55

Post by ucaetano »

anon1385 wrote: post #49
ucaetano wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burden is on you to prove that they don't.

How can I prove a negative? I can only point to what the Google AMP documentation says, where they state that you have to allow your site to be served by Google AMP Cache to count as an AMP site: https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq and https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp Maybe they don't follow their own docs and there are sites out there not cached in the Google AMP Cache that still ge…

The wording is that you have to allow you page (not site) to be cached by any CDN.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#56

Post by dbg31415 »

Conceptually I hate AMP. I wish they would just have guidelines for fast load times, and award better rank and a lightening badge next to pages that are adhering to those guidelines. I HATE that Google restricts design, re-formats pages, and serves your content.

That said, AMP clearly isn't for eCommerce. You want dynamic, personalized content for eCommerce. Recommendations based on past pages visited, or search terms, or your location... It's not just about fast loading pages.

Some eCommerce may fear that their sales will suffer if someone else gets a page that's in AMP and then Google's new rankings put that page over their own... But that's no reason to convert your site to AMP. It's a good reason to build out landing pages specific for search terms, do paid advertising around keywords, and just generally market your products / site.

Generally speaking, people who come in to product pages straight from Google are just doing price comparison anyway -- it's just a step in the decision journey, but if you've done a proper job of marketing your business, customers that buy tend to go straight to your site and do a search using your own search tools.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#57

Post by avaer »

cobookman wrote: post #54
avaer wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Google, the hijack is the prime feature; AMP is the PR vehicle that makes it swallow. AMP could have been done without the huge exception, but then Google couldn't profit from it.

I think it's also about prefetching amp pages from Google search. You can't do that without the cdn. Sure google could modify chrome to allow this and not block it. but you'd be asking for even more technical blockers. And you'd have something that only works for a small portion of the web.

Sounds like the perfect use case for a nice standard CORSy web prefetch API that all browsers could implement.

And this would work for at least as much of the web as is currently putting effort into AMP.

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#59

Post by the8472 »

godot wrote: post #47
dividuum wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I don't think the idea behind AMP is bad. But the implementation is dangerous as it artificially fragments the web. I guess fewer would oppose AMP if google made some machine verifiable guidelines for "light" webpages that would earn them this "icon". Linked from the "fat" page by some "link" meta tag.

>if google made some machine verifiable guidelines for "light" webpages that would earn them this "icon". Linked from the "fat" page by some "link" meta tag. That is exactly what AMP is; with the exception (a huge one, I know) that Google also then caches the page on their server and serves it from a google.com host.

> That is exactly what AMP is

Except that there is mandatory 3rd-party javascript that needs to be loaded just to get it to render. That doesn't make sense if it really just were about lean pages

Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce

#60

Post by andy_ppp »

anon1385 wrote: post #37
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #23

Despite understanding and largely agreeing with the concerns against AMP Cache that get discussed any time an AMP article gets posted on HN, I cannot stress enough on how relieved I feel to see the lightning icon next to a mobile search result, especially on my now aging phone. Most content websites have become such a massive crapfest of ad-bloat, bad UX, huge page sizes and general usability hell that it's nigh impo…

I think that the fact AMP sites are faster than the average site is exactly what makes it so dangerous. Obviously there are plenty of sites out there that aren't bloated up with javascript and ads, but Google doesn't offer any way to identify that in the search results. The only reliable indicator of site speed is the Google AMP Cache logo. So naturally users will consciously or otherwise favour clicking results with…

AMP isn’t that much faster, it’s still html, css and gobloads ofv js. The real speed increase is Google SERP sucking up your data plan and prerenders a whole loads of stuff without asking.
Post reply on HN