171–180 of 566 posts
Okay, so besides all the "told you so", "Google is evil" and "I hate AMP": Has anybody actually seen the behavior described in this tweet by some anonymous guy? Because I can't confirm it so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can never get the Open In Reddit app button to work. I’m on iOS and have the latest version of the official reddit app. Which btw is painfully filled with ads.
On Android I have a similar problem; I use Reddit is fun, and so it doesn't open that app; it always wants to download the main app.
As far as I know I have never seen an AMP website. I use DDG as search engine but !g a lot, so I assume I should have stumbled upon an AMP site at least once.
But maybe it is also browser related? When I go to amp.cnn.com I get redirected to editions.cnn.com in Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The worst thing I've seen recently is amp URLs for reddit threads. It's one bad thing (new reddit UI) wrapped in a worse thing (AMP), and getting back to classic reddit takes a lot of gymnastics. The stupid part is that the amp page is indistinguishable from the (new) reddit page (the AMP page comes complete with the "download our app" popup). So I don't see how it's providing any speed/experience benefit.
I can never get the Open In Reddit app button to work. I’m on iOS and have the latest version of the official reddit app. Which btw is painfully filled with ads.
I suppose I'm happy the google crawler is still banned from my domains. People should use something else if they want good results now.
Does uBlock or privacy badger block it? It seems out of scope for those projects so I expect I should see amp links just like anyone else. Or did they kill it in the EU or something? I saw someone from NL wondering the same elsewhere in the thread.
As a user, AMP is great. AMP is a better implementation of the open web than HTML is. It's a (usually) self-contained document that isn't tightly coupled to the server it came from. You can download an AMP document, render it, attach it to an email to a friend, etc., without having to log in or get tracked. Unfortunately AMP is adding ad capabilities, but at least AMP allows you to strip those out fairly trivially.
As a website, if you want your users tightly coupled to your server, just don't implement AMP? You literally went through non-negligible effort to implement a feature and now you're surprised and angry that it works the way you implemented it. AMP was always a bad idea if you wanted users to be dependent on your website for your content--this has only made it a slightly worse idea. And by the way, if all you want is credit for your content, it's trivial to add a linked byline to the top of your AMP.
I'm not defending Google here. They're an amoral corporation with too much power and shouldn't be used, period. But AMP is fine.
EDIT: I can only assume the silent down-voters are people who implemented AMP and are whining that what they implemented works. ;P
[0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amp2html/
How does anyone think this is a good idea? It should be clear which news site I am reading when I'm reading an article. Otherwise, how do I know which bias to apply? On iOS, the title bar says "google.com" whether I'm reading an article from CNN.com or WashingtonExaminer.com. Of all the anti-competitive actions google has taken around search results, AMP is by far the worst. I hope they get smacked down for it in the…
People have been saying this for years, and it never happens.
Is AMP popular in the US only? (I am from the Netherlands) As far as I know I have never seen an AMP website. I use DDG as search engine but !g a lot, so I assume I should have stumbled upon an AMP site at least once. But maybe it is also browser related? When I go to amp.cnn.com I get redirected to editions.cnn.com in Firefox.