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

121–130 of 166 posts

Re: The End of AMP

#121

Post by intergalplan »

defaultname wrote: post #113

Having AMP controlled and intermediated by Google was always a bad thing. It tainted what ultimately was a good effort, which is taking the enormous scope of web technologies we have now and winnowing them back down again for optimized publishing purposes. And this article does what is often done in the AMP discussion and (disingenuously) demonstrates that you can make a non-AMP page that's smaller/faster than an AMP…

My problems with AMP are:

1) Google clearly leveraging it to take over more of the web,

2) The scroll hijacking that made it feel worse-performing (plus just otherwise unpleasant) than middle-weight websites normally do,

3) That some of the sites I most commonly accidentally end up viewing through AMP are useless in their AMP version, so it just adds a hunt-and-click for no reason (Reddit is a big offender)

Google is one problem, one is a technical implementation problem, and the other is an ecosystem problem.

Re: The End of AMP

#122

Post by emn13 »

sofixa wrote: post #92
emn13 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is at least a factor 10 too low under the assumptions that fines of that size are the result of a lengthy legal process and thus that such fines are not levied more than once every few years. 4% is peanuts for a massive tech corps that can afford to take such massive hits because their margins are so huge, and their fixed costs quite controllable. As long as the risk cannot be existential, this becomes an accounting question, and the inevitable rarity of the fine unfortunately means the optimal strategy is likely to skirt as close as possible to illegality and pay the fine and ask forgiveness rather than being too proactive - that way they only need to bother with behavior changes that really matter. 4% is just too little for large corporations, at least.

Then of course there's the fact that the GDPR - possibly due to a bit of regulatory capture - very strongly encourages venue shopping, and with resources like that, bending a small venue (like Ireland) to your will even slightly is conceivably feasible, and valuable. Personally, I'm not too impressed by the implementation of the GDPR, even if the fact that it's finally on the agenda is a good thing. It may even exacerbate misuse of personal data, because the burdens it imposes are much harder to bear for small parties than for large ones; and that's a competitive moat that encourages centralization of private data, and that encourages shifting the balance of power toward the corporation away from the individual (who says no to google's privacy policy?), and the combination of "willing" users, a lax privacy policy, and huge centralization encourages misuse. Proportionally your local sports-club is likely more impacted than Google, which is absurd.

Re: The End of AMP

#123

Post by bashinator »

defaultname wrote: post #113

Having AMP controlled and intermediated by Google was always a bad thing. It tainted what ultimately was a good effort, which is taking the enormous scope of web technologies we have now and winnowing them back down again for optimized publishing purposes. And this article does what is often done in the AMP discussion and (disingenuously) demonstrates that you can make a non-AMP page that's smaller/faster than an AMP…

> I do wish we had a "web lite" mode that we could turn on, if only for certain domains.

There are some options for activating reader view even before loading a web site[0]. I imagine it would be a pretty light lift from there, to create an extension that keeps a domain list which automatically prepends the reader view URL prefix.

The magic prefix is

    about:reader?url=
[0] https://www.howtogeek.com/268116/is-there-a-way-to-force-ena...

Re: The End of AMP

#124

Post by jefftk »

jefftk wrote: post #97
coffeefirst wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Normally, the way that late loading adds cause reflow / layout shift / jumpiness is that you don't know what size an ad slot is going to be until after the auction. You could run an auction just for a single size, but you'd have fewer bidders and make less money, so publishers generally choose to offer a bunch of sizes. On a regular page, this looks like an ad coming in and shifting all the other content on the page.

AMP had several design goals, one of which was that it should be impossible to create pages with certain types of bad user experience, including reflow. An AMP page requires that every element on the page be sized only by information directly visible in the HTML (including inline CSS, but no inline JS) which allows the browser to lay the whole page out immediately. When an ad loads off screen there can be a request to the AMP runtime to resize the slot, but the runtime will reject the request if the resize might cause user visible effects.

More details: https://blog.amp.dev/2020/04/16/cumulative-layout-shift-in-a...

Re: The End of AMP

#125

Post by bo1024 »

defaultname wrote: post #113

Having AMP controlled and intermediated by Google was always a bad thing. It tainted what ultimately was a good effort, which is taking the enormous scope of web technologies we have now and winnowing them back down again for optimized publishing purposes. And this article does what is often done in the AMP discussion and (disingenuously) demonstrates that you can make a non-AMP page that's smaller/faster than an AMP…

> I do wish we had a "web lite" mode that we could turn on, if only for certain domains.

You get to choose what browser and plugins you use. That goes a long way.

Re: The End of AMP

#126

Post by hedora »

burkaman wrote: post #110
propogandist wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook offering to share unencrypted WhatsApp messages with Google where can I read more on why they allowed this?

I haven't found any statements about it from either company, but here's a decent article: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/whatsapp-google-drive-back...

According to that article, they also snoop on the content of any files stored in Drive.

To think, just a decade ago, this article seemed paranoid, to the point where even the author seemed to think it was an oversight in the Terms of Service:

https://techland.time.com/2012/04/26/will-google-drive-snoop...

Interestingly, they give (gave?) themselves redistribution and performance rights for Drive contents at the same time. How long until they start openly using those rights, I wonder?

Re: The End of AMP

#127

Post by rtsil »

tobr wrote: post #60
Trufa wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is clearly a separate discussion, but it’s interesting to consider why we’re always so eager to jail people for street crime, but it “seems really excessive” when it’s a white-collar crime.

That's because HN's audience is composed of a large majority of white collars, and from a larger perspective, 99% of politicians, judges, lawyers, journalists, columnists, editorialists and commentators are white collars. It's just empathy (in this case, misguided empathy). We can identify more easily with a white collar criminal than a blue collar criminal.

Re: The End of AMP

#128

Post by sergiosgc »

pdenton wrote: post #83

The article says "The largest and most talked-about item in the update is Google announcing that sites with passing core web vitals will receive a ranking boost on mobile." Can anyone please explain what "passing core web vitals" means? It links to very lengthy articles full of SEO jargon that I don't understand.

Use the Google Search Console to check for Core Web Vitals problems. Look for the "Experience" section on the left menu.

Re: The End of AMP

#129

Post by john_alan »

concordDance wrote: post #61
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…

Ads being delayed seems like a win for consumers though.

Just use a pihole.

It’s literally changed my internet experience in my home.

Post reply on HN