Ironically, Google News was totally ruined by AMP.
The End of AMP
161–166 of 166 posts
Re: The End of AMP
#162Having 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…
The thing that gets me is that AMP isn't even necessarily that fast. It appears fast because the Google search results page preloads AMP articles, which it's able to do because they are served from the same google.com domain.
Overall it just feels like hack upon hidden hack with a sliver of standardisation on top.
Re: The End of AMP
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it’s because a violent pickpocket puts my loved ones in more immediate, direct danger than some ads loading a little slower on a website.
It is difficult to weigh actions that greatly harm one person against tiny annoyances to millions, but you could argue that the tiny annoyances to millions is a larger offense than violently robbing a single person on the street.
> you could argue that the tiny annoyances to millions is a larger offense than violently robbing a single person on the street.
Yeah, no, you really couldn't. It sounds like you've never been the victim of direct, physical violence, and the psychological effects it causes.
Re: The End of AMP
#164Having 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-w…
Pity that Google’s amp “host page” breaks reader mode on iOS Safari. It’s why I use Duck Duck Go on my phone, so I can actually read the pages undistracted. I don’t like the DDG search results as much as Google, but Google ruining my web experience drove me away.
I wonder if amp intentionally breaks reader mode, to force viewing of Google served mobile ads.
Re: The End of AMP
#165Having 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…
> It tainted what ultimately was a good effort
Really? Scroll jacking is good effort?
Re-inventing a bunch of tags, just because, is a good effort?
It had a good claimed goal: make heavy sites load faster, particularly on low bandwidth/high latency connections.
The approach taken was, like everything Google does, heavy handed, tone deaf, and instantly defended by fanboys waiting for another chance to suck on the google teat.
Re: The End of AMP
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Where does the article say they snoop?
Drive is unencrypted because it is indexed for personal search. What is the snooping part?
> redistribution and performance rights for Drive
This is completely standard and required so that they can provide syncing and sharing.