41–50 of 59 posts
I hate AMP. It is just a tech to give google more control. Anything to helps kill it off is a good thing. It is possible to create pages that load fast on mobile without it.
I hate AMP. It is just a tech to give google more control. Anything to helps kill it off is a good thing. It is possible to create pages that load fast on mobile without it.
> It is possible to create pages that load fast on mobile without it. Sure, except few people do. And Google seized the opportunity here. Most of the times, the AMP site is faster, there is real value added for the end user, and Google used that positive experience to sneak in their stuff. It would never have happened if sites were fast to begin with. Like I always say about AMP, there are two parts to it: some sort…
Except AMP sites usually aren't faster. They just get preloaded[0]. If google preloaded non-AMP sites (which is technically feasible, there has been browser extensions doing this since ages ago), they too would load "faster", fancy that!
There's no good part to AMP. It's bullshit that doesn't really work. Sure in absolute metrics, your website might be "faster" simply by following AMP's rule, but it'll still usually be way too slow without google's cheats.
You know what works to make websites load faster? Not including megabytes of javascript, properly configuring your server to compress the data, keeping images at a reasonable resolution, and preferably under the fold.
The only thing AMP was ever good for is give Google a convenient excuse to seize control of content distribution, giving them even more insight on users' browsing habits and whatnot. And golly did it work.
[0]: https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424...
IMO: Any protocol or mechanism written by Google is surely to give it more control over the Internet, hence advertising and hence revenue. Not only AMP, but HTTP 2, QUIC, DNS over HTTPS are all things that Google wanted to have control over. I certainly hope the free internet moves into Tor and the rest of the dark web, and is certainly not indexable by Google. Also, stop using Google Chrome if you wish to do the web…
Android is the worst part of their monopoly. They control everything on the phone down to the hardware. Mobile desperately needs an "IBM compatible" moment to usher in free use of other operating systems
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is possible to create pages that load fast on mobile without it. Sure, except few people do. And Google seized the opportunity here. Most of the times, the AMP site is faster, there is real value added for the end user, and Google used that positive experience to sneak in their stuff. It would never have happened if sites were fast to begin with. Like I always say about AMP, there are two parts to it: some sort…
> Most of the times, the AMP site is faster Except AMP sites usually aren't faster. They just get preloaded[0]. If google preloaded non-AMP sites (which is technically feasible, there has been browser extensions doing this since ages ago), they too would load "faster", fancy that! There's no good part to AMP. It's bullshit that doesn't really work. Sure in absolute metrics, your website might be "faster" simply by fo…
IMO: Any protocol or mechanism written by Google is surely to give it more control over the Internet, hence advertising and hence revenue. Not only AMP, but HTTP 2, QUIC, DNS over HTTPS are all things that Google wanted to have control over. I certainly hope the free internet moves into Tor and the rest of the dark web, and is certainly not indexable by Google. Also, stop using Google Chrome if you wish to do the web…
Compare news to other OC, like books, music, video, podcasts, and apps.
Musicians get paid. Kinda. (I'm not smart enough to figure out if Apple/Beats is some kind of label, meaning underwriting (?) OC.) And music videos definitely get ad revenue sharing (YouTube & Vevo).
Book authors get paid. Kinda. Isn't one of Amazon's properties now an imprint, or publisher, or whatever that segment's underwriters (?) called?
Video definitely gets paid. Streaming, snippets (Vine and now TikTok style), vlogging, sports, episodic TV, movies, miniseries (Netflix), etc. EVERYONE is paying for OC video. It's a strategic differentiator.
Podcasters get paid. (Per power laws distribution.) Like video, EVERYONE is trying to get into the game, funding OC.
Ditto apps.
--
So why is "news" different?
If I was Apple, today, I'd set up some kind of huge trust with the sole purpose of funding any and all new "journalism" OC. No strings attached.
I'd open the flood gates for funding OC. Huge, big, and small. Copy every kind of philanthropic funding idea. Have a huge fund for traditional news organizations serving int'l, national, state, and local markets. Do whatever Corp for Public Broadcasting does for PBS. Dump money into other trusts funding OC, directly or thru partnerships. One off grants for indie bloggers and investigative reporters. Recurring funding for activism style journalism. I'd reinvent "new bureaus" to recreate "embedded" journalism, so reporters can get paid to cover city hall.
I'd create infrastructure for fund raising. So other listener supported media can more easily replicate the success of KEXP.
I'd figure out a "startup school" incubator so that wannabe working journalists and bloggers learn how to get paid. Music and film and writing communities have their own ecosystems of conventions, workshops, meetups. Fund the same for journalism.
And just like the new style purpose driven philanthropists, I'd have some kind of metrics. Internal and external. Rewarding both effort and successes. Imagine funding an arts critic, say someone(s) reporting on the ballet and dance community. Their victory conditions would be very different than someone reporting on current events.
Edit: Two more ideas: Endowments for schools of journalism. Create and fund more awards, prizes.
--
It's painfully unobvious to me why journalism, reporting isn't being funded. Google and Facebook benefit tremendously, economically, from OC.
Are these parasites worried they'll kill their hosts?
Why suggest Apple? I dunno. Two reasons.
It just seems to me that they'd understand best how to benefit from PBS style shoutouts like "This programing was made possible thru the generous support of Apple Community Trust and other supporters just like you."
And like privacy, their hands-off relationship with journalism OC would be a terrific "brand laddering" strategy that Facebook (Zuck) and Google (Page, Brin) are unable to replicate, because they are constitutionally incapable of ceding control. Seeing how Bezos seems to have managed Wash post, future Bezos may have something closer to enlightened altruism.
I can kinda imagine Jack Dorsey creating a trust for OC. His recent giving pledge org is impressive. But given Twitter's continued schizophrenia, I just don't think he has a compelling (reality based) thesis or worldview for journalism. And insert the cliche about asking someone who created the problem to then turnaround and fix the problem.
Bonus third reason: Maybe Apple would be better are coaxing journalists to optimize for Apple News. Something like WWDC for written OC.
Thoughts? Ideas? Reactions?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Android is the worst part of their monopoly. They control everything on the phone down to the hardware. Mobile desperately needs an "IBM compatible" moment to usher in free use of other operating systems
The problem is that Google seems to be only one writing good software. If you have used Tizens of mobile vendors or customised Androids they tend to be crap. Google keeps software quality up, forces vendors to roll out patches.
It's super weird that news aggregators aren't directly funding OC. How does "news" work when most of the content creators go out of business? (Edit: Huh. I guess we already know, because that's exactly what happened.) Compare news to other OC, like books, music, video, podcasts, and apps. Musicians get paid. Kinda. (I'm not smart enough to figure out if Apple/Beats is some kind of label, meaning underwriting (?) OC.)…
Also, people at Apple might have other ideas about where to fling their cash.
How much did you say this would cost? To save journalism from extinction. Per annum?
Theyre actually so similar that Reddit et al are killing them. Reddit even often has local reporting from Redditors; I find out about lots of happenings directly from Redditors.
I think national news will likely survive in some form because of the investigation required (and the legitimacy granted by an organization like the NYT reporting on it), but local papers are going to go the way of the pay phone.
It's super weird that news aggregators aren't directly funding OC. How does "news" work when most of the content creators go out of business? (Edit: Huh. I guess we already know, because that's exactly what happened.) Compare news to other OC, like books, music, video, podcasts, and apps. Musicians get paid. Kinda. (I'm not smart enough to figure out if Apple/Beats is some kind of label, meaning underwriting (?) OC.)…
I'd like this to happen. Not sure Apple would see it this way, particularly since they have a certain relationship with Google that is riven with quid pro quo's. Also, people at Apple might have other ideas about where to fling their cash. How much did you say this would cost? To save journalism from extinction. Per annum?
Provisionally assume peak journalism in the 1970s was 200,000 reporters.
Let's low ball double that for production and support (proofreading, factcheckers, web masters). +400,000.
Add 20% for admin overhead. +120,000.
So aspirational "full" employment is 620,000.
Guesstimate $120k yearly benefits (salary, healthcare, coffee).
Punt on expenses (phones, laptops, gas, office rent).
So it'd cost $74.4b / year to have "full employment", in the USA.
ACT has the goal to seed 1% of all journalism, of whatever variety.
Like most others, they want to share the risk, meaning they'll seed and match, but rarely fully fund, and typically max at 25%. (Successful fund raising is good social proof signal of merit.)
$74.4b x 1% x 25% = $1.86b
So ACT commits to ramping up to granting $1.86b per year. Some funding channels will ramp up quicker than others.