231–240 of 340 posts
AMP pages take forever to load, I hate seeing a white screen > 1 second. with amp that's all I see on mobile. A white screen burning my eyeballs, seemingly forever. And then I snap out of it and hit back to escape from AMPs empty void.
I hope at least Mozilla doesn't adopt this technology and will show the true URL.
This technology is complicated. Browser vendors have to implement all of this only to please Google.
Using the signed exchange mechanism means you allow anyone to serve your content. You will no longer know when it has been served and by whom. Instead, Google will know more about what your users are consuming on your website than you - despite HTTPS! Also, there is no mechanism to limit who is allowed to serve your content for you. I see no technical reason why the content has to be prefetched from Google instead of…
The caching doesn't necessary need to be by Google. https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-amp-real-url/
I can’t believe there is no way to opt out of AMP as the end user. The UX is so terrible. Often times I will search for something and have a Reddit result come back. When I tap the link, I get the AMP page which: * does not show all comments, often ones I am actually looking for * does not let me collapse comment sections * uses the default white background theme which burns my retinas if I am looking at my phone in…
In contrast, say, Urban Dictionary is undistinguishable from the real thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that most people are worried about Google using a controversial[0], draft web "standard" (Signed HTTP Exchanges), that introduces a major change in how the web works, in mass production, without trying to first resolve the problems raised with the proposal. [0] For instance, Mozilla considers the current specification to be harmful[1]. [1] https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
There was an attempt to address Mozilla's concerns[1], but Mozilla never responded, unfortunately. If the Mozilla community chooses not to respond, that might cause people to consider whether or not their position should be given much weight. [1] https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/29#iss...
This is such a strange reaction from HN. The AMP cache URLs have been a top 3 complaint about AMP here. "I can't copy-paste URLs, it's hard for users to understand which site they are on, it looks like the content is provided by Google rather than the real provider", etc. Now there's a solution that preserves the preloading and validation benefits of AMP caches but maintains the original URLs, in a way that's cryptog…
It only works in Chrome. The Web has now been split in two, and you now have to use Google Chrome to be on the faster version. Google is shamefully abusing its power in several places here.
I would _pay_ google to be able to disable AMP permanently on mobile web results. The experience is the absolute worst. I'm fine with them wanting to ruin mobile web (that's their choice), but PLEASE let the users be able to disable this terrible "feature."
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…
> With this setup, documents can be prefetched while preserving user privacy and after the user clicks all browser behavior continues as normal from that point forward.
But Google can already preload and show cached version of the page without this spec. The only difference would be that address bar shows "google.com" instead of publisher's domain. There is no need for this specification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMP allows Google to see exactly how you interact with every page on the internet. Just from the text of the pages you visit they can build a profile around you. What your interests are, how much of an article you're likely to finish, whether you're the type of person to highlight text as you read, etc. Unless you live on an island with a poor satellite connection AMP is useless as anything more than a corporate user…
AMP documents don't share user data with Google, which can be trivially seen by inspecting the network events that the page generates. If the publisher chooses, they can send logging to Google Analytics, but this is not part of AMP. The typical argument otherwise is that the AMP javascript is loaded from Google's cache, however these javascript resources allow for a very long cache lifetime (1yr if the page came from…
Is there anything preventing Google from changing this later?