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

AMP for email is a terrible idea

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#411

Post by Andrex »

sli wrote: post #409
rident wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Falling into the 3-4 crowd myself I also agree with this. Changing emails - perhaps in an automatic fashion - to use AMP is going to do nothing but harm to anyone outside Google. Image inclusion the AMP way [1] alone will ruin HTML email for other services. If Google really wanted to improve emails they would push for full compliance HTML5 support. Because if emails could be built with grid layouts, content could be…

Amazing. That link is solid white with JS disabled. Why does Google routinely refuse to display text unless JS is enabled? Their developer blog does almost the same thing.

I think AMP is built on web components, which require JS.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#412

Post by taeric »

amdavidson wrote: post #410
josteink wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why you should always choose a service which offers full access via standards-based protocols so that you always have the option of owning your own data.

And why I regularly download backups of my email from Fastmail. The only concern I have with them raising prices or disappearing entirely is the service interruption of moving my DNS to some other email provider.

I'm assuming bitrot of your backups is also a concern. Or do you have a suggestion on automating integrity checks of your data?

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#413

Post by aerotwelve »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #377
Spooky23 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It was probably the single best social thing I’ve ever used. It was unique as it was actually social. Both my teams at work and family/friends used it as a way to comment on news and share stuff of interest. It was also a product of an earlier era where there was excitement over anything Google released. Google+ tried to capture many of the good parts of reader... but it was too forced.

The social aspect was the one part of Reader I never got. I don't think anyone I know uses RSS feeds outside of podcast subscriptions. I just liked that it was the only RSS reader I had ever found that just worked, and it synced my state as a bonus.

I would love to move back to RSS for the sites I read regularly, but no one seems to offer RSS anymore...

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#414

Post by rz2k »

jkahrs595 wrote: post #379
simias wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand your point. You're projecting a lot, there's more to the world of computers than Google and Apple. At any rate you choose to buy into Apple ecosystem. A big email provider changing how email works is not the same thing. For the record I host my own email server and use mutt as my main email client. The only Apple device I own is an old pre-iphone iPod. If Google changes the expectations of e…

> At any rate you choose to buy into Apple ecosystem. Yes and if I don't, too bad. I just can't iMessage the rest of my family who did.

Yesterday the HN discussion was about the terrible state of messaging and the roles many companies played in getting to where we are now.

Email works pretty well between multiple different providers or even your own server. How do plans that will “accidentally” take email closer to the current state of messaging help the internet work better?

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#415

Post by Angostura »

mankash666 wrote: post #207

I'll get down voted for saying this, but the HN crowd's hypocrisy is baffling. 1. Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade. This is an opportunity for them to extract value from the said channel. If you're allergic to Google offering free services that use your data for advertising, go pay for email. Google isn't a charity and you aren't entitled to a Gmail of your choosing. 2. Apple is a prime…

Your argument boil some down to ‘its Google's platform, they can do with the want with it’.

Which is true. It's equally true that people can point out if changes Google make are problematic for users.

No hypocrisy required.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#416

Post by pwinnski »

guessmyname wrote: post #41
pwinnski wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please consider what you're suggesting. Do you mean to say that Google cannot possibly do anything that isn't good? Really? AMP is good for Google, and secondarily maybe also good for some subset of people who care more about short-term benefits on slow connections than the long-term damage to the open web. AMP for email is good for Google alone.

> Do you mean to say that Google cannot possibly do anything that isn't good? Really? No, that's not what I am saying, please don't put words in my mouth. My comment is divided in three parts: 1) sarcasm 2) question and 3) counter argument. The sarcasm is already labelled. The question is what you assumed was an affirmation. The counter argument is, "AMP works for some people", you said "AMP for email is good for Goo…

> How is that the "bad idea" passed over so many people at a company that praises itself of hiring some of the most smartest people in the field?

That formulation is disingenuous at best, and your follow-up describing it as a "question" is just as bad.

How is it that you think your comment was acceptable when so many people disagree at a website that praises itself for having some of the smartest commenters on the web?

I hope that helps demonstrate the dishonesty of a question of that format. No need to answer.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#417

Post by whywhywhywhy »

mediaserf wrote: post #366
birksherty wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly what I thought about new Youtube web interface. It's slow to load and consumes more CPU. Previous design worked great everywhere. There was no need for the UI change. But, people can't just do nothing and get paid. So, they will create the need. And now spend months to make it, fix it, get busy again.

Yes! This "over-engineering" is happening all over Google products. Chrome is another example. It is not all bad, however, some Google Apps really needed attention, like the new Calendar is a step up (IMO).

> This "over-engineering" is happening all over Google products

This is absolutely a thing at Google IMHO. Remember the last major version of Google Maps, ran silky smooth on low end hardware, searches went where you expected, in and out no problem.

Then someone decided to try for glory and improve on perfection by re-engineering the entire thing. Now it sets the fans off in my macbook within a few seconds of appearing and they run for the duration, searches zoom out and show results 5 miles away on the other side of the major city I live in when I just want to see restaurants or coffee shops near me, constant back and forth jank from result lists to items.

Went from an app that was a complete joy to use to something I dread to interact with.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#418

Post by pitaj »

sli wrote: post #409
rident wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Falling into the 3-4 crowd myself I also agree with this. Changing emails - perhaps in an automatic fashion - to use AMP is going to do nothing but harm to anyone outside Google. Image inclusion the AMP way [1] alone will ruin HTML email for other services. If Google really wanted to improve emails they would push for full compliance HTML5 support. Because if emails could be built with grid layouts, content could be…

Amazing. That link is solid white with JS disabled. Why does Google routinely refuse to display text unless JS is enabled? Their developer blog does almost the same thing.

It works for me with JS disabled.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#419

Post by bluGill »

ams6110 wrote: post #346
KMag wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing stopping end users from using non-Google search engine. Just so everyone's clear, monopoly doesn't mean (nearly) 100% market share; it means a large enough market share to be able to manipulate the market. So, to elaborate on your first point, I think you're saying that the ease of switching search engines means that a market share necessary to manipulate the search market would be near 100%, much h…

Do you have an economic or legal reference for that definition of "monopoly"? Since search engines are all free to use, many of the criteria of a monopoly seem hard to apply, but the classic defintions I'm familiar with include things such as "no reasonable substitute" which is not the case for Google Search.

From wikipedia The lowest yet market share of a company considered "dominant" in the EU was 39.7%

Google is dominate for sure.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#420

Post by bduerst »

kuschku wrote: post #320
r3bl wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing stopping end users from using non-Google search engine. Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo... they're all viable products that you can use to accomplish 90ish% of what Google could find, and maybe even more now that Google strips historical data (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16153840 , from a month ago). Since you're mentioning SEO, I just checked and 15.8% of searches for my website came from non-Go…

Something can be a monopoly in market, but not in another. Google isn't a monopoly for users, it's a monopoly for developers. You can't get users without being on Google. Only if I can replace one company with another, at roughly equal results, can the market be considered competitive. I can't delist my site on Google and replace those users with Bing users. If each search engine had only 5% or 10% of the market, tho…

You're describing a monopsony, not a monopoly.

And while Google has monopsonic power, it isn't the sole player in the market so it's not a true monopsony. Facebook, Twitter, and other channels have control as well. If you still disagree, look at how widespread Facebook's open graph standards are as proof of the market catering to these companies' purchasing power.

Or just look at the header on the article: https://i.imgur.com/XlGgTaw.png

Post reply on HN