51–60 of 340 posts
Does nothing for publishers' needs for deeper control and analytics. Just a "feel good" gesture that results in additional complexity for everyone involved. Google is not the only company in the world that knows how to load a page efficiently.
This sounds terrible. Does it mean that browsers will begin lying to users and say that the users are visiting the website's server when they are really visiting a restricted version of the website that is hosted in Google's cache? I don't want my content restricted or hosted in Google's cache. AMP doesn't load in a privacy sensitive way. It's on Google's servers and it takes many seconds to load if you have JavaScri…
I didn't even know about "HTTP Exchanges", and I'm more interested than ~98% of the population about this kind of stuff. Showing the name of the "signer" in the address bar, instead of the server where the content is actually hosted goes against decades of browser UI design. Good on Mozilla for marking it as harmful.
Does it though? If you use Cloudflare or Akamai or Cloudfront or Netlify or etc. etc. then what shows up in the URL bar is not the server where the content is actually hosted. Well, it is the server where it is hosted, it's just one of the many domains hosted by that server.
Faster than AMP, more open than AMP, and all the benefits of AMP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users like pages that load quickly, which amp is not a requirement for. Amp is designed to tighten googles grip on the web, nothing more.
No it isn't. It's designed to make the user experience better on sites that frequently host Google ads (and also often contain a ton of bloat, 3rd party js, poorly constructed DOMs, awful CSS, etc). The only way Google could proactively "solve" this problem was by creating a "standard", and then also offering to absorb end user traffic for sites that adopted the standard. FWIW, AMP is an open standard not solely owne…
Turns out people were right to be suspicious. This is hot garbage. You can no longer ask a user "What URL does your navbar say you're at?". It is no longer a source of truth. They will actively be lied to.
It also at least helps slightly address one of the complaints of publishers, which is that cookies and some analytics will work now.
But it still doesn't address the biggest complaints of publishers.
I'm guessing Google cares a lot more about the user experience than the publisher experience, since users make up most of the traffic and all of the ad consumption, so this is certainly good for them!
This sounds terrible. Does it mean that browsers will begin lying to users and say that the users are visiting the website's server when they are really visiting a restricted version of the website that is hosted in Google's cache? I don't want my content restricted or hosted in Google's cache. AMP doesn't load in a privacy sensitive way. It's on Google's servers and it takes many seconds to load if you have JavaScri…
The browser displays the URL from the origin that digitally signed the unmodified content. A browser already doesn't show you what server delivered the content. That would be your wifi AP, cell phone tower, or ISP node. The internet has already long established that we can trust content without trusting intermediaries. There are two elements that are important: integrity and privacy. The content integrity is protecte…
By forcing web publishers to host their content on a Google cache, they lose their server-side logging and the ability to determine how they set up they way they serve their own sites.
Also, why do you artificially slow page loads on AMP pages to 8 seconds when JavaScript is disabled? That is a privacy issue.
Let’s hope AMP, like most google products, is shut down within the next 2-3 years
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not written like someone trying to kick a hornet's nest. It's written like someone who has been conditioned inside of a culture that has begun to view the Web as a Google product on some level.
And if somebody was wanting to kick a hornets nest, that’s exactly how you’d want to write it :). My point is, you cannot just blindly trust anonymous comments to be who they say they are, it’s an easy way to get yourself in trouble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't even know about "HTTP Exchanges", and I'm more interested than ~98% of the population about this kind of stuff. Showing the name of the "signer" in the address bar, instead of the server where the content is actually hosted goes against decades of browser UI design. Good on Mozilla for marking it as harmful.
> Showing the name of the "signer" in the address bar, instead of the server where the content is actually hosted goes against decades of browser UI design Does it though? If you use Cloudflare or Akamai or Cloudfront or Netlify or etc. etc. then what shows up in the URL bar is not the server where the content is actually hosted. Well, it is the server where it is hosted, it's just one of the many domains hosted by t…