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

Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 238 posts

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#81

Post by wpietri »

Spivak wrote: post #47
BigBalli wrote: post #29

"some arbitrary set of performance standards"? Less than 3s load time, reasonable DOM size, and low FID are all widely accepted as a "good UX". Just another veiled article criticizing Google's dominance rather than a technical one.

Look, you're right that this is essentially Google making everyone eat their vegetables but isn't it a little wild that this single company has so much control over the internet that they can basically make sweeping decrees like this?

I think that's a fair point. I'd love to see more of this done in coalition. Google doing solo not only can bend the web toward Google's corporate interests, but it undermines the growth of other social structures (e.g., citizen movements, nonprofit advocacy groups, regulators, governments) to solve problems like this.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#82

Post by jeffbee »

tyingq wrote: post #54
jeffbee wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing about AMP that requires anyone to give up any part of their page. The presentation you are talking about is a feature of only certain AMP hosting services. A lot of organizations host their own AMP sites, like Conde Nast magazines. Example: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/qualcomms-new-snapdr...

Yes, I'm speaking exclusively of Google's AMP cache, which I assume dwarfs any other in numbers of notable users. Edit: As for Conde Nast, I found this article: https://technology.condenast.com/story/the-why-and-how-of-go... The diagram[1] suggests the Google AMP cache is (or was) in front of users, and they also say this: "AMP helps us satisfy these needs. AMP increases the visibility and discoverability of our cont…

The article directly contradicts your claim. People can use Google's CDN without losing control of any part of their content. It's just a CDN.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#83

Post by jsnell »

thejohnconway wrote: post #73
jsnell wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose they source that data from other browsers? Do you e.g. think Apple and Mozilla would provide them with a suitable feed, at a high enough granularity to be useful? And if they did, what do you think the public reaction would be to such data sharing?

How about testing sites themselves with those browsers and benchmarking that?

Ok. So the first problem is that people would end up optimizing for entirely the wrong thing. Rather than optimize for the machines and networks that are actually in use, you'd optimize for high CPU Linux servers with no GPU connected over high bandwidth and low latency networking. Not low CPU mobile phones over LTE or dodgy WiFi.

Second, you wouldn't complain that it's an unfair advantage to pages in the Google AMP cache, due to a better network location? An unfair advantage to pages hosted on GCP? An unfair disadvantage to iOS due to there being no iOS server hardware that could be used for testing?

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#84

Post by undfg »

fddddd wrote: post #55
wil421 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean more pop ups to accept?

lol. google is sweeping the entire internet not catering to chrome users under the rug and you're concerned with popups on the top 10 bigger sites

Cookie laws have destroyed my web browsing experience much more than amp ever has.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#86

Post by tyingq »

jeffbee wrote: post #82
tyingq wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm speaking exclusively of Google's AMP cache, which I assume dwarfs any other in numbers of notable users. Edit: As for Conde Nast, I found this article: https://technology.condenast.com/story/the-why-and-how-of-go... The diagram[1] suggests the Google AMP cache is (or was) in front of users, and they also say this: "AMP helps us satisfy these needs. AMP increases the visibility and discoverability of our cont…

The article directly contradicts your claim. People can use Google's CDN without losing control of any part of their content. It's just a CDN.

So, from Chrome mobile, I searched for "springsteen anti-vaccine". The first carousel entry is a CondeNast property, vanityfair.com, with an AMP lightning bolt icon.

I click it, and get this: https://imgur.com/a/2W3oWSW

The top bar is Google controlled. The url in the omnibar is a google url. So I'm not seeing how Conde Nast is a good example here. Before they very recently rescinded the requirement, using a non-Google AMP cache meant you didn't get into the carousel.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#87

Post by wyager »

bruce343434 wrote: post #42
wyager wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the future the EU chose when they started imposing EU law on foreign internet companies.

If you serve something in another country, you abide by their rules. Be it a physical product or a virtual one, which includes a website or webservice.

This concept is a recent legal development. It’s not obviously correct.

Whether or not you think it’s correct, the obvious and inevitable conclusion is that the web will be siloed off and cease to be a global network.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#88

Post by wyager »

elliekelly wrote: post #39
wyager wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the future the EU chose when they started imposing EU law on foreign internet companies.

Foreign internet companies aren’t obligated to operate in the EU. If they don’t like the rules they can choose not to participate.

If you choose to conflate “sending packets to the EU” with “operating in the EU”, you are choosing a future where the internet is siloed off and the web ceases to be a global network. I am not passing judgment - merely stating a fact.

Re: Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse

#89

Post by jeffbee »

tyingq wrote: post #86
jeffbee wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article directly contradicts your claim. People can use Google's CDN without losing control of any part of their content. It's just a CDN.

So, from Chrome mobile, I searched for "springsteen anti-vaccine". The first carousel entry is a CondeNast property, vanityfair.com, with an AMP lightning bolt icon. I click it, and get this: https://imgur.com/a/2W3oWSW The top bar is Google controlled. The url in the omnibar is a google url. So I'm not seeing how Conde Nast is a good example here. Before they very recently rescinded the requirement, using a non-Goog…

What you're complaining about is that Google frames the carousel results, which is a completely legitimate complaint, but which is not really related to AMP as such.

Edited to add: An example of where the same content is not framed by the same search engine is on Chrome Mobile's new tab page "articles for you". Many of these are directly links to unframed AMP content, such as what I'm seeing right now: seekingalpha.com/amp/..., thehill.com/...?amp etc

Post reply on HN