Because they didn't internalize the feedback from Wave well enough I guess. /s I agree with the article, email is email. But it points out something which is fundamentally a problem for the industry. Some software is done as in doesn't need to change any more. That is a scary place since all those Gmail engineers need to do something so if it isn't adding new things to Gmail what will they do? Interesting parallel in…
AMP for email is a terrible idea
461–470 of 483 posts
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#462Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#464Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gaining customers doesn't mean monetizing, and it's particularly relevant to point out that a channel is under monetized specifically when this channel has a lot of users.
I highly doubt that mandatory monetisation of every channel is a sound economic strategy. EDIT: While not intentional, that was a bit flippant without extra arguments, my apologies. Also, this is more of a general "abstract" comment; Google operates in a real-world, concrete business context that it has to adapt to, and I am not burdened with knowing the details of that. Google (the search engine), Gmail, and really…
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#466Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why I like to map one of my own subdomains to the cdn service. So everything is at cdn.example.com and if I change providers, it's just a dns record change and everything is ready, even if I want to just host my own content.
Doesn't that kill the possibility that a visitor will already have common content cached when visiting your site for the first time? I know that's not the only reason to use a CDN, but it's a pretty big one.
It sort of/kind of started with jQuery, and in those days including jQuery was considered somewhat bloaty. I think it was about 18kB minified back then? Today their site says it's 30kB.
Either way that's miniscule compared to having a few pictures on your webpage. Having much more JS than that, honestly seems like true bloat to me, which I don't think CDNs should facilitate anyway (so much untrusted unknown unchecked code doing very, very filthy things).
My point is, it wasn't a very good argument back then either, but it became normal because people did it for other reasons, too.
The main reason people did it, was that it was just so much easier. Just copypaste those 1.5 lines of code in your section to include the latest version of jQuery from Google's CDN, instead of downloading it and putting it somewhere in your source tree and now you've got to keep track that different parts of your codebase written months apart don't accidentally use slightly different versions (because it's ugly, not because it mattered a lot otherwise), etc.
Such convenience!
And if someone asked if it was really a good idea to blindly load 3rd party code and run it in the context of your own domain? Even I told people this sometimes: Well if you can't trust Google serving you secure code, then the web is basically fucked anyway, and we got much bigger problems. Which seemed like a reasonable threat model / security trade off at the time.
And now we're here.
About a week ago Google got caught hosting hostile ads that included cryptocoin miners inefficiently wasting users' electricity for a few bucks (profit insignificant compared to the cost of energy wasted). And apparently Google's offering to blindly host 3rd party JS to all users on the entire Internet everywhere (except the adblockerati), via their fucking ad network, has been expected behaviour for over a year at least and nobody gave a peep when that malfeature appeared.
I still don't know the exact date when or if there even was an announcement when they allowed advertisers "sure do whatever you like to their browsers, run some code, compute stuff, track them in all the ways we haven't dared to deploy publicly, or yet thought of, have at it, you need this, you do you".
So yeah, the web is fucked, we got bigger problems and hell no you can't trust Google any more.
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't that kill the possibility that a visitor will already have common content cached when visiting your site for the first time? I know that's not the only reason to use a CDN, but it's a pretty big one.
In my experience, the variety of specific versions of libraries sites are locked to dilutes that performance benefit. Just look at a cross-sampling of sites calling jQuery or . In theory, the maximum benefit of a CDN only comes if everyone is on 1) the same version or, similar but different, 2) an evergreen version. And the latter is a big red neon sign screaming "DANGER".
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#468IMO it's already ridiculous the GMail app never even cached (a large) part of your messages on your device so you can use it offline.
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#469" “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…
Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea
#470Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are making a mistake in thinking you are the customer. You are the product.
For totally unrelated tinfoil-hat reasons I started using fastmail yesterday. Now I feel very vindicated in my choice, but it makes me wonder; since Gmail is so pervasive, will this action by them end up f-ing up email for everyone, the same way that many sites claim to only work on Chrome?