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

AMP: the missing controversy

ferdychristant.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 143 posts

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#71

Post by lern_too_spel »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #16
paulddraper wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we have to participate. It claims to be an open standard; we should participate (or try to participate) in the open standard. The problems AMP solves are real. They will be solved one way or another. I'm hopeful they can be solved in an HTMLite sort of way, not a whatever-Google-does sort of way. So let's think about how to improve AMP, change AMP, evolve AMP, until it becomes something else and something bet…

I make this mistake too, but we need to stop calling it an open standard unless it's handed over to a neutral standards-making body. AMP's solution to the URL problem involves another Google-pushed web standard, webpackage. But the big difference is that webpackage is part of the WICG, a community group under the W3C. That's a real standard, this is not. If AMP not handed over to the W3C, I don't think we can or shou…

I want instantly loaded web pages now, not in 5 years when the standard is ready and Apple has finished dragging its heels and implemented it in its browsers, allowing publishers to finally use it.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#72

Post by quanticle »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #71
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I make this mistake too, but we need to stop calling it an open standard unless it's handed over to a neutral standards-making body. AMP's solution to the URL problem involves another Google-pushed web standard, webpackage. But the big difference is that webpackage is part of the WICG, a community group under the W3C. That's a real standard, this is not. If AMP not handed over to the W3C, I don't think we can or shou…

I want instantly loaded web pages now, not in 5 years when the standard is ready and Apple has finished dragging its heels and implemented it in its browsers, allowing publishers to finally use it.

That attitude is what allowed Internet Explorer to become the dominant browser. What are you going to do when Google gets bored of supporting Chrome and disbands the team, leaving your web pages tied to a stagnating browser?

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#73

Post by jadedhacker »

k_sh wrote: post #46
mulmen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your defeatist message and I consider it harmful if spread. Individual action is the foundation of our entire social system. It is not "useless" by any measure. I don't want to use AMP in email so I'm not going to. It's just that easy. What are you doing and what do you suggest the rest of us do? Is voting with our wallets not a thing any longer?

Jumping in under here to highlight your first point: collective action is, literally, a large set of coordinated individual actions.

That's true but the key word is coordinated. Without coordinated action, we're back at individual action. Coordinated action might be protests, boycotts, etc. Usually there are one or more _institutions_, that is a cohesive group of people, backing and advancing the interests of the group. This is a very powerful model.

A familiar example is the NRA. It's not a political party, but it advances the interests of its members relentlessly. Institutions of the left include things like Planned Parenthood. Often, there are issue advocacy organizations that spring up when corporations are doing bad things. Often the strategy is to do things that impact the corporation financially, which short of legal threats is basically the only thing they understand. Anything short of that can be brushed off with rationalizations by various powerful stakeholders within the corporation.

Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that individual action is essential, but not sufficient to make a difference when it counts.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#74

Post by jadedhacker »

mulmen wrote: post #37
jadedhacker wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, being the kind of citizen you want to be is undeniable a good thing, but it's also undeniably useless. It individualizes a collective problem, thereby being an ineffective solution. The only way to resist power is with collective action that substantially challenges it.

I disagree with your defeatist message and I consider it harmful if spread. Individual action is the foundation of our entire social system. It is not "useless" by any measure. I don't want to use AMP in email so I'm not going to. It's just that easy. What are you doing and what do you suggest the rest of us do? Is voting with our wallets not a thing any longer?

I actually intended my message to be inspiring. ;)

My point was that you can't go it alone and there are friends that will help you. I left a more theoretical justification in another sub-thread.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#75

Post by lern_too_spel »

quanticle wrote: post #72
lern_too_spel wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want instantly loaded web pages now, not in 5 years when the standard is ready and Apple has finished dragging its heels and implemented it in its browsers, allowing publishers to finally use it.

That attitude is what allowed Internet Explorer to become the dominant browser. What are you going to do when Google gets bored of supporting Chrome and disbands the team, leaving your web pages tied to a stagnating browser?

> What are you going to do when Google gets bored of supporting Chrome and disbands the team, leaving your web pages tied to a stagnating browser?

The whole point is that AMP works on all major browsers as they exist today. Waiting for a new standard and then waiting for Apple to implement it is a non-starter.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#76

Post by akras14 »

Cache is part of AMP spec. What author seems to refer to is only a 2/3 of AMP spec - Subset of HTML and JS library.

Since the beginning AMP team was clear that AMP is not very useful without cache.

I do agree with all of the concerns raised, but wanted to point this out as to not get sidestepped from the main discussion.

https://www.alexkras.com/i-had-lunch-with-google-amp-team/ https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#77

Post by mr_spothawk »

mulmen wrote: post #3
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

We were discussing with the AMP project tech lead over on GitHub trying to suss out details about governance and the like, and it's even scarier than we thought when it came to AMP4Email: Gmail is implementing AMP in email "the way they want to", and AMP Project is just deciding whether or not they want to support it/publish a 'standard'. I strongly recommend this for reading: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/is…

I think the best thing to do is just be the kind of online citizen you want to see. It may be small but it is something you can do yourself. I will be looking for a way to move my online identity away from Google to something I control more directly. I am also going to try replacing my social media activity with email. The web is already decentralized, we just need to use it.

I've been very pleased with the integration of Fastmail (calendar/notes/contacts/mail) with iOS & OSX

along with DDG I find myself very well taken care of, and I can always type in Google if I need to (2 times a day?).

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#78

Post by mr_spothawk »

jadedhacker wrote: post #73
k_sh wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jumping in under here to highlight your first point: collective action is, literally, a large set of coordinated individual actions.

That's true but the key word is coordinated. Without coordinated action, we're back at individual action. Coordinated action might be protests, boycotts, etc. Usually there are one or more _institutions_, that is a cohesive group of people, backing and advancing the interests of the group. This is a very powerful model. A familiar example is the NRA. It's not a political party, but it advances the interests of its me…

funny thing that, I went to the their membership page for the first time today because I wanted to know how to express my individual support. I'm not an owner, and I will likely get a membership ... because it's an advocacy I care about.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#79

Post by Too »

ec109685 wrote: post #56
jsnell wrote: post #24

> If Google would have a genuine interest in speeding up the whole web on mobile, it could simply preload resources of non-AMP pages as well. ... but they've been doing exactly that for ages. Originally with link rel=prefetch, and later with ever more elaborate schemes which I think culminated with this: https://plus.google.com/+IlyaGrigorik/posts/ahSpGgohSDo But prefetching based on giving hints to the browser has a…

Yes, exactly. They (Google, others) cannot instantly load arbitrary websites because those sites would have access to the google.com domain in an unsafe manner. That is why AMP is “different” than other HTML. It is a safe way to allow Google, Twitter, Bing, Yahoo Japan and others to cache pages and preload/prerender them in the background before the user clicks.

If Google had genuine interest in just speeding up page loads after search they would let the client prefetch the page (amp or not) straight from the original domain instead of their own cdn.

Re: AMP: the missing controversy

#80

Post by Sylos »

akras14 wrote: post #76

Cache is part of AMP spec. What author seems to refer to is only a 2/3 of AMP spec - Subset of HTML and JS library. Since the beginning AMP team was clear that AMP is not very useful without cache. I do agree with all of the concerns raised, but wanted to point this out as to not get sidestepped from the main discussion. https://www.alexkras.com/i-had-lunch-with-google-amp-team/ https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overv…

> Since the beginning AMP team was clear that AMP is not very useful without cache.

I don't see that at all. Even just calling it a "specification" is misleading in the worst ways. You don't need a spec for caching. Nor do you need a spec to tell you that you shouldn't include a ton of CSS and JS. Nor was it ever the plan of Google to actually see others implement this spec.

Post reply on HN