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

441–450 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#441

Post by shostack »

wwweston wrote: post #223
shostack wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a marketer my fear is Google sees what FB is doing to monetize the feed format and it is moving to turn email into the next algorithmically controlled feed it can turn into a dynamic auction. There is already a Gmail placement for AdWords ok the GDN. However for the most part, if I as a marketer send emails to my customers, I can be more or less certain they will get delivered if my deliverability is high. What I…

> algorithmically controlled feed it can turn into a dynamic auction. That's already happened with GMail, hasn't it? The filters for Promotion, Social, and of course Spam already control what/where users see (and it'd be trivial for Google to charge a fee here based off visibility of Promotion-categorized messages). It's still in a linear and usually legible way, of course, and I think it's arguably user-friendly if…

It has started with the tabs, you are right.

I don't think introducing ads into the feed is as ludicrous as you say from a business standpoint. If done properly, I could see Google avoiding a mass exodus while simultaneously opening up more inventory for them. In some ways, I see Inbox as a test towards this vision.

My broader concern is a fundamental shift in the ownership of a customer/user relationship and the cost of reaching them. In today's world, you pay a fixed price for your ESP, and then some CPM rate for volume typically. Your costs are known, often negligible, and entirely under your control. Likewise, as long as you follow best email practices and nurture healthy relationships with those on your email lists, you have an expectation that your email will land in their inbox if they want to receive it.

That is similar to what FB had back in the day when someone Liked your brand page. If you posted, they would see it assuming they scrolled through their feed enough.

My fear is that Google will change that dynamic such that you cannot be guarantee to reach your audience (even if you have great deliverability) without entering into an auction and paying a constantly changing price that presumably will always increase as they maintain control as the new gatekeeper of that customer communication.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#442

Post by Bartweiss »

codazoda wrote: post #432
bdhess wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have the exact opposite opinion then. I moved to DuckDuckGo on iOS because I thought the AMP formatted Google search results were so user-hostile. Maybe they’ve fixed the bizarre scrolling and overly sensitive links by now, but I see no reason to find out, because I don’t feel like I’m missing anything.

There are still UX problems on Android too. I tend to open links in a new window and then close the one I'm looking at when I'm done with it. This experience is totally broken with Amp pages in mobile Chrome. Uhg.

When AMP was announced, I was excited about it specifically for my phone - it's where I care most about loading speeds.

These days, I actively avoid AMP links on Android. It's such a hideously buggy, functionality-disabling system on my phone that it's not worth loading those pages at any speed.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#443

Post by ehsankia »

thesagan wrote: post #140
ehsankia wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter how you "feel", I know for a matter of fact, objectively and measurably, that my load times have gotten significantly faster, and that AMP has achieved what thousands of sites have failed to do. So feel free to call it names and bring up feelings, but what I care about is the actual objective experience I'm getting.

That's being a bit obtuse. Of course it matters how it feels, however you look at it! Such as if a loading bar makes something feel better as it loads - then good!

That's not quite what I was talking about. I was responding specifically to:

> I see no reason to find out, because I don’t feel like I’m missing anything.

The person was basically saying "I don't feel like checking how good AMP is, I'm just going to blindly dismiss it"

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#444

Post by Bartweiss »

tejasmanohar wrote: post #82
bdhess wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have the exact opposite opinion then. I moved to DuckDuckGo on iOS because I thought the AMP formatted Google search results were so user-hostile. Maybe they’ve fixed the bizarre scrolling and overly sensitive links by now, but I see no reason to find out, because I don’t feel like I’m missing anything.

For what it's worth, I only use my phone seriously when I'm out and about, and a lot of times, my internet connection isn't the best, e.g. while in metro

This is true for me too, but I still find that using AMP pages on Android is basically nonfunctional. They load fast, but scrolling is shoddy and every single linking function (back button, hyperlink, and new tab alike) is a mess.

If I want to load a single page with dense content, view it without scrolling much, and close the tab, AMP makes my mobile experience better. If I want to do anything else, AMP on Android starts to interfere with basic functionality.

Which is a pretty sad story for a Google CDN on a Google browser on a Google OS.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#446

Post by ehnto »

gowld wrote: post #428
ehnto wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of why I don't advocate for CDNs when you don't need them is because I want to build robust sites that work for years untouched. For timespans over a year, anything not on your server is brittle. Oops, CDN changed its URL/didn't update their ssl ciphers/went bust and shut down completely and now {js-framework}/{css-library} is missing and my site is broken. What an unforeseeable circumstance!

Right, better to have your site fail today, then to risk it failing in the future. You couldn't make an archive of your site for emergency access.

Why would it fail today? If I can't serve an asset then my whole server is down.

If you are an e-commerce site serving hundreds of images worldwide then CDNs make a tonne of sense.

If you just have a simple site or SaaS getting decent traffic, why add a failure point by including your choosen JS with a CDN. No one batts an eyelid when you add ten images to the homepage but somehow a single, much smaller JS file is too much extra load. It doesn't stand up to reason.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#447

Post by dreamcompiler »

How to get promoted at Google:

1. Build a product everybody hates and shove it down their throats.

2. Find an existing product people love and fuck it up or kill it.

How not to get promoted at Google (or anywhere else):

1. Build a product people hate and quietly let it die.

2. Do absolutely nothing to an existing product that works well that people love.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#448

Post by tomrod »

I like AMP. Brave browser seems to block most of the ads by default, and I get the speed benefits for free.

I really dislike ads or using my CPU cycles to mine bitcoins for unrelated entities (cough cough Salon).

Am I stealing the information these entities provide for free on open Internet connections? Maybe. I don't really care though. I also benefit similarly by gut bacteria processing my food, and also don't want them taking their "fair" share of my life by ending up in places they don't belong. This particular analogy is, of course, open for expansion.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#450

Post by ehnto »

ehnto wrote: post #446
gowld wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, better to have your site fail today, then to risk it failing in the future. You couldn't make an archive of your site for emergency access.

Why would it fail today? If I can't serve an asset then my whole server is down. If you are an e-commerce site serving hundreds of images worldwide then CDNs make a tonne of sense. If you just have a simple site or SaaS getting decent traffic, why add a failure point by including your choosen JS with a CDN. No one batts an eyelid when you add ten images to the homepage but somehow a single, much smaller JS file is to…

Noting I couldn't quite figure out the tone of your comment to know if you were agreeing or disagreeing.
Post reply on HN