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

The End of AMP

lafoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 166 posts

Re: The End of AMP

#91

Post by jefftk »

gsnedders wrote: post #14

> AMP also came with the unfortunate requirement that publishers let traffic sources such as Google cache their content and serve it from their domain, such as google.com. At least with Chrome, one related performance advantage will remain, given AMP pages will remain preloaded from Google results pages, whereas non-AMP pages won't be. Why is this related? On mobile, Google preloads AMP pages in the carousel that are…

This has changed too:

Signed exchanges (SXG) allow Google Search to prefetch your content while preserving the user’s privacy. In practice, this means that both AMP and non-AMP results shown on Google Search may prefetch a few key resources (such as HTML, JavaScript, CSS, images, or fonts) in a privacy-preserving manner, if the associated website supports SXG.

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/experienc...

(Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)

Re: The End of AMP

#92

Post by sofixa »

emn13 wrote: post #63
Trufa wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m as much against AMP as the next YC user, but jailing seems really excessive.

Even a few weeks would likely be at least some disincentive; and anything less than that - like fines - runs the risk of being "costs of doing business" (e.g. most of the EU's laughably low fines, and US fines are very unpredictable, though at least somewhat higher). If it's not going to be imprisonment, then the fines need to be much quicker, and much higher; enough to threaten a corparation's viability. For some pe…

> e.g. most of the EU's laughably low fines

Which is why in new legislation, fines are proportional - GDPR has fines at max 4% of global yearly revenue or 100 million euros, whichever is higher.

Re: The End of AMP

#93

Post by dane-pgp »

kevingadd wrote: post #47
ksec wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Web Bundles different from .mht, which I "think", if I remember correctly is the same as MHTML. And Safari somehow support something else..... This is a genuine question. It is such a simple feature, zipping an HTML file with all of its resources. Why do we need that many standards for it. Is it NIH syndrome or are there technical reasons in doing so?

AFAIK bundles are designed to enable Google's CDN to serve up signed bundles from their servers and masquerade the bundles as coming from your site's domain. That's not something MHT files were designed for. (This actual feature is separate.)

It would be nice, though, if a site owner could use an offline private key to sign a web bundle, and then instruct browsers to only load their web app if the signature matches its public key.

The key would probably have to be delivered in-band, requiring a TOFU security policy, but that's not so bad.

Ideally the browser would also keep track of which version of the app it loaded last time, and give the user the option of fetching a newer version if one is available, to prevent malicious updates.

Re: The End of AMP

#94

Post by sofixa »

ExtraE wrote: post #20
FriedrichN wrote: post #17

I am so happy I have been able to avoid AMP my entire career and this ensures that I will probably will never have to bother with it in the future. This 'web inside the web' stuff is so antithetical to what the web is supposed to be, I hope Google will just pull the plug like they do with just about everything else that isn't the search engine or G-mail.

Or youtube, although that makes a lot of money so probably not anytime soon.

> Or youtube, although that makes a lot of money so probably not anytime soon

Does it? Alphabet quarterly reports don't list YouTube revenues and expenses separately, and i imagine something like YouTube costs a shit load of money in storage and bandwidth.

Re: The End of AMP

#95

Post by [deleted] »

izacus wrote: post #85
alexvoda wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downvoted you because you are deviating the conversation. I find it hard not to attribute hidden intentions behind what you posted. The parent comment quoted saying they were loading their ads before ads from competitor networks. Noone said anything about when the content was loaded. Google is the largest ad peddler. You are obviously trying to shift the conversation away from how Google controls AMP and apparently…

> You are obviously trying to shift the conversation away from how Google controls AMP and apparently used it to gain an advantage in the ad market (basically an antitrust issue) towards a generic conversation of ads are bad, but Google is good. That is a really horrible accusation of something I haven't done. The OP is the one proposing jail-like punishment for actions that only lower the ad revenue and actually ben…

[deleted]

Re: The End of AMP

#96

Post by dane-pgp »

inshadows wrote: post #59

> I’ve had the pleasure of working with more than twenty thousand publishers in the five years since AMP’s launch, and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a single reason that a publisher uses AMP other than to obtain this priority placement. So I know nothing about AMP, but I've skimmed through the Google's documentation of signed exchanges, and it seemed like a good thing. I assume that it is the foundation of AMP. Isn…

It's a pity you're being downvoted (perhaps because of the sarcastic tone of your final sentence), as I think you are right about Signed Exchanges. The technology could have some useful non-evil applications.

I wrote another comment in this discussion about this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27024415

Re: The End of AMP

#97

Post by jefftk »

coffeefirst wrote: post #90
concordDance wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ads being delayed seems like a win for consumers though.

Not at all. It makes the page slower and jumpier.

> jumpier

Not on AMP pages. AMP's design prevents user-visible reflow.

(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself.)

Re: The End of AMP

#98

Post by propogandist »

dannyw wrote: post #45
numair wrote: post #39

Please don’t let your excitement take your focus off this part of the story: > The good news gets even better; non-AMP pages make considerably more revenue per pageview than AMP pages. Initially, I assumed this was due to the nature of how ads load on AMP, however, recent Antitrust lawsuits have proposed that hindering ad competition was a feature and that all non-amp ad tags, such as my company, Ezoic’s, were delaye…

There are active lawsuits going on by something like 49 out of 50 states. That's how damning evidence like this -- as well as Facebook offering to share unencrypted WhatsApp messages with Google (through the "backup to Drive" feature) -- came out to light. Unfortunately a lot of HN readers are dismissing this or calling it partisan grandstanding, just because it's Texas that filed it.

> Facebook offering to share unencrypted WhatsApp messages with Google

where can I read more on why they allowed this?

Re: The End of AMP

#99

Post by tobr »

Spooky23 wrote: post #89
tobr wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is still the same, why do we feel it’s fair when blue-collar criminals are treated inhumanly, but harsh when applied to white-collar criminals?

The personal violation you feel as a victim of a mugging or a burglary is more visceral and real, whether someone steals a dollar or ten thousand dollars. The perp takes something from your psyche, and we want to extract the same. When some character fudges a spreadsheet or sets up a viscous cycle in business, it is more abstract. We’ve all done it to some degree (received an undeserved discount, more change than owe…

Let me unpack this. Do you think any given person is more likely to be considered “kryptonite” because they committed insider trading than because they did, say, a smash-and-grab? If not, your last paragraph is not justifying more lenient punishments for a certain class of crime, but for a certain class of socio-economic status. To put it in other words, only poor people should go to jail.

Re: The End of AMP

#100

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #95
izacus wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are obviously trying to shift the conversation away from how Google controls AMP and apparently used it to gain an advantage in the ad market (basically an antitrust issue) towards a generic conversation of ads are bad, but Google is good. That is a really horrible accusation of something I haven't done. The OP is the one proposing jail-like punishment for actions that only lower the ad revenue and actually ben…

[deleted]

[deleted]
Post reply on HN