Live data from Hacker News

AMP for email is a terrible idea

techcrunch.com

31–40 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#31
Nothing says “we’re listening to your concerns about AMP” like rolling it out further to interfere with a function that is even less suited for AMP.

Also, technology companies have a real problem assigning appropriate value to maintenance tasks that just keep things stable and usable. I’ve had infrastructure responsibilities over the years and the hardest thing about it was that nobody really knows or cares how much trouble you put into having things work flawlessly for months or years on end. It was important to find lots of visible tasks to go along with the invisible ones. I guess you end up with things like 40 Google chat clients and “hey let’s screw with E-mail” when there isn’t enough promotion-worthy work left to do in those areas.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#32
post #7

Good luck! I had the "pleasure" of working on HTML emails a few months back. It was unbelievably painful. Getting even a simple email to display consistently across a dozen different mail clients is a huge pain. This is why so many marketing emails use giant images for everything--it's the simples way to get consistent rendering. I predict whatever Google launches will work in GMail, and GMail only.

Most of the pain of HTML email is Microsoft’s fault, because they have persisted in using the MSO (Word) HTML render/editor in Outlook and Windows Mail, and it’s worse than IE 5.0. (Outlook 2003 switched to the IE renderer, and everyone rejoiced; then the Outlook 2007 went back to the MSO renderer for rather crummy reasons and all web people boggled and despaired.)

Sure, other clients have their inconsistencies, but they’re nowhere near as bad as MSO, and they actually get fixed over time. Microsoft, on the other hand, persist in using a rather buggy engine from twenty years ago, unchanged (I don’t know that there haven’t been any functional changes or bug fixes since then, but if there have been they’re minor or obscure).

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#33
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market? Is that what we call it when one member of the duopoly controlling most email clients decides to embrace and extend the standard? Also even if you believe in Santa Claus and free markets, people getting on their soapbox to say “this is a terrible idea” is part of the free market.

No - expressing an opinion is called "freedom of speech", which goes hand in hand with the free market. You'd be amazed at the number of initiatives launched by the supposed monopoly (Google) failing in the free market. Nacl lost out to wasm. Chrome OS never really took off. Despite people's gripes about AMP, consumers are clearly loving faster, more responsive websites and hence it's relevance. Let this play out and…

Isn't ChromeOS very popular in schools? I would assume so based on the sales of Chromebooks anyway.

Re: Amp, this topic always leads to people foaming at the mouth on HN. I don't expect to see much actual discussion occur.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#34

I don't know the technical details of what Google is planning, but if they build something that eases the pain of building cross platform HTML emails, that's a welcome innovation in my opinion. Building emails that "work" even just okay is a ridiculously hard task. Every company I've been at has made some attempt with mediocre results at best (oh, you're using _Outlook_?). I'm not holding my breath for something good…

"but if they build something that eases the pain of building cross platform HTML emails"

On the other hand, if HTML is excluded then the message gets through without scope for mischief.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#35
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free market? Is that what we call it when one member of the duopoly controlling most email clients decides to embrace and extend the standard? Also even if you believe in Santa Claus and free markets, people getting on their soapbox to say “this is a terrible idea” is part of the free market.

just a hypothetical, but if you were to assume that Google had no ill will here and was actually trying to make stuff better for users - what do you think the best way would be for people working at Google to do this? I.e. say you worked on the gmail team, you really cared about users, you thought amp for email would be good for users, how would you go about making this happen in the world? genuinely curious if its e…

This is a pretty packed question, there's a lot of factors. The size of Google, and the fact that they own several complimentary monopolies makes it very hard for them to do anything without providing a new conflict of interest.

Take Chrome's ad blocking... there's no way this can be ethically done by Google, even if blocking annoying ads definitively improves user experience. If Chrome was not owned by Google, it wouldn't be at issue, but it is owned by Google, and there's no way for Google to approach this topic. Googlers who care about this should push Google to split off Chrome into an independent foundation.

AMP is a way to push content to centralized platforms. Even if others run AMP caches (which are pointless because Google Search uses Google's cache, etc.), it pulls the Internet towards centralized cloud providers of which Google is one of the top three. And again we cross a huge self-interest issue.

If Google wanted to retain enough goodwill to even start to walk this back, they need to move back to open protocols. RSS (or a newer JSON equivalent), XMPP (or a newer equivalent), etc. And deal with all the mess that comes with true decentralized open standards. It's not like Google can't afford the additional difficulties. If their AI is as great as they claim (it's not, G+ porn spam is rampant), it shouldn't be hard for them to provide good experiences on open federated systems.

Want to run apps in emails? Great. Does the user want it? Can I decide which apps I want running inside my emails, based on what's useful for me?

Will the user get to pick whether their AMP emails are dynamic or not? Google+ notifications have a long history in Gmail of overwriting the display of the actual email with a live page, which can try to obscure the email's original content, like in the case of a deleted message. You'd have to use an IMAP client to see the content of the message that was actually sent to you.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#36

" “modernize” email, allowing “engaging, interactive, and actionable email experiences.” " Whenever a service or company purports to make something "engaging" and "interactive" you just know that useability and actual, tangible usefulness are going to go out the window in favour of marketer-driven choices. We don't 'engage more' with your software/service because you changed everything to optimise for engagement and…

You are making a mistake in thinking you are the customer. You are the product.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#38
post #7

Good luck! I had the "pleasure" of working on HTML emails a few months back. It was unbelievably painful. Getting even a simple email to display consistently across a dozen different mail clients is a huge pain. This is why so many marketing emails use giant images for everything--it's the simples way to get consistent rendering. I predict whatever Google launches will work in GMail, and GMail only.

On top of that, it will only work well in Gmail on Chrome. Gmail on Firefox is already kind of a shitty experience, it will only get worse.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#39
Seems over-engineered. Why not the following simple setup -

- user receives email with a link (text or image) that points to some AMP page

- user clicks on the link

Gmail: - renders the AMP page in-place, replacing email content

Non-gmail clients: - keep whatever "link click" behavior they currently have

This does not render interactive content in email automatically and requires a click, but that click is important because it

- signals the user's desire to interact with the content

- follows current email security expectations, e.g. does not load third party content (other than images) just by viewing the email

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#40
Everybody had a computer that could run any program, but used only their web browser, so they made the web browser pretend to be any program, but then everybody had a web browser that could run any program, but used only webmail, so they made webmail pretend to be any program? Where does that end?

Or are these ”engaging, interactive, and actionable email experiences.” more limited than the current web applications? If so, what are their limitations?

Also, I guess all clicks in those experiences will go through Google’s servers.

Post reply on HN