Google no longer requires AMP, but the replacement might be worse • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:19 PM UTC

fddddd wrote: post #57

topicseed wrote: post #50

AMP was great for those with very low speed internet. The philosophy and implementation of AMP can be questioned (URL masking, content stored away from the origin) but it did show that users really wanted to click on pages that loaded fast. Core Web Vitals, as a publisher myself, are a nightmare. But at least we know what goes wrong as it's clearly laid right in front of the developer's eyes. So we go and fix thing a…

adblockers like uBlocker Origin was even better for low speed internet than amp.

Turning of javascript completely breaks so many sites, but it is much, much, much faster to browse the web that way. I run Ublock Origin and it is great, but you are often still paying the javascript price.

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

#162

Post by my_usernam3 » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:20 PM UTC

kuschku wrote: post #154

topicseed wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I do appreciate my ad revenue to pay my team members and myself so I won't be the one recommending that.

Of course, harming people always pays well, doesn't make it something you should be proud of.

I read the comment in a different light. He or she is not exactly proud just admitting to the current circumstance. Specifically with this phrase

> so I won't be the one recommending that.

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

#163

Post by wutwutwutwut » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:24 PM UTC

paulcole wrote: post #132

wutwutwutwut wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None? I have no clues what marketings goal are and frankly I don't care. If they want to insert some junk.js into their web page they need at least to ensure it is legal.

If you work at the same company on the same product don’t you both have the same end goal?

Not really, no. There are 500 people in marketing organization and I doubt there are less than 20 conflicting end goals within that organization. Unless you're going all fluffy and talk about company goal as said by the owners.

Either way, if their process of reaching their end goal included steps which legal dismissed then they needed to go back to the drawing board and figure out a new strategy, right? It would be strange for me who doesn't work in their profession come and tell them how to solve their issues.

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

#164

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:28 PM UTC

captn3m0 wrote: post #141

Maybe browsers should accept the text/markdown mimetype natively, instead of AMP. Covers 80% of the usecases, with a drastic reduction in complexity and pageload times.

Which Markdown though? Common mark, Gitlab, etc? Do we get any extensions? I like tables.

HTML is not bad and it is easier to parse than markdown, the trouble is javascript and the ways ads abuse them. Strip that out, set the size of images and you can create a better experience for your users without changing all browsers.

However if we can get wild requests for new content types, then I would love text/latex, so that I could create a website that fits the real size of your browser and render a gorgeous output.

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

#165

Post by mdoms » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

onli wrote: post #138

WillPostForFood wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* The web vitals themselves are unquestionably good for the user* Fast pages are good, but Google is using their tools like Page Speed to push you to adopt Google’s ideas of fast, like using WebP for images. So now you might have a bunch of cruft in your page to support multiple image types. Also, as user, I hate lazy loading. I can scroll faster than images load. I’d rather everything load in the beginning, and have…

You can not scroll faster than images load. You can maybe jump via the scrollbar faster to a page position than images load, but that's it. That's at least with the HTML5 async image standard in Firefox. It's up to the browser after all, so if yours loads images too slow the issue might be there. And sure, if the images are huge they will take a long time to load, but that's also covered by the core web vitals. A sit…

What absolute nonsense. It doesn't matter which "async image standard" you use, you're fundamentally limited by my internet connection. I agree completely with GP, I would rather open a page in the background, give it some time to load all of the images and then browse it. Lazy loading is a pain.

Your test case is totally meaningless, the images are under 3kb. Full (non-lazy) image loading is far more important on websites with lots of large images.

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

#166

Post by netr0ute » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:34 PM UTC

topicseed wrote: post #62

fddddd wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

adblockers like uBlocker Origin was even better for low speed internet than amp.

Well, I do appreciate my ad revenue to pay my team members and myself so I won't be the one recommending that.

Hot Take: If your website needs ads to survive, it wasn't that good to begin with.

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

#167

Post by ljm » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:35 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #26

> The logic behind AMP goes like this: web developers suck at making fast websites, let's strip out all the stuff people don't need and cache it on our super-fast servers. Web developers don't suck at making fast websites. Publishers demand tons of ads and tracking scripts. If the person signing the paychecks wants the page to have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS, then the page will have 15MB of sketchy third-party JS…

Google Analytics and Google Tag Manager need to take the blame here. Web developers are doing their damnedest to build a decent site or application, until marketing/growth steps in and makes GTM a requirement, and product want to try out the 6 different analytics tools they're looking at.

You can at least push back on the product somewhat, or use something like Segment to fan-out. But once Marketing gets GTM in place, all bets are off - they're doing god knows what to the site/application, completely outside of the purview of the usual engineering process, because they can inject whatever they hell they want into the page.

GTM is essentially a backdoor but it gets a pass because marketing.

Web devs emphatically, and by definition, do not suck at developing websites.

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

#168

Post by nybble41 » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:42 PM UTC

scott_w wrote: post #142

nybble41 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it unjust when literally the entire U.K. population is in support of this position? Obviously not "literally the entire U.K. population" if someone in the U.K. isn't following the rule. This is a complex subject and I'm not going to get into it here, but the Cliff's Notes version is basically that the U.K. government is not a party to this transaction, is not harmed by it, and does not represent (as in: havi…

Put simply: your logic is insane and no government adopts it, for good reason. Longer version: governments adopt rules based on what works for them and their population. This includes rules that govern what can and can’t be sold in a business transaction. This is a principle as old as government itself. It makes sense that governments then apply these rules to things going in and out of its borders. It would be nuts…

> This includes rules that govern what can and can’t be sold in a business transaction. This is a principle as old as government itself.

If we're talking about a "business transaction" as in an exchange of physical goods across the border, then I agree. I said that it was unjust, not that it was without precedent. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I believe in the concept of government itself. The core of what government is, and does, is unjust. Arguing that governments have always done things this way carries zero weight with me.

Applying these rules (or any rules) to the non-commercial exchange of information, or even to commercial services involving no exchange of physical property, is the recent, and more immediately concerning, development.

> It would be nuts to ban the sale of guns inside a country…

I agree with you up to that point. But if they want to ban the import of "wireless handheld hold punchers" or any other contraband they should do that at the border, by stopping the shipments—which at that point consist of the buyer inside the country attempting to import their own property after the sale—and not by attempting to impose their internal rules on foreign sellers. Residents could buy them but would have to keep them outside the country, perhaps using them only while visiting the country the goods were in at the time of the sale, or somewhere else where they are legal.

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

#169

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:43 PM UTC

cratermoon wrote: post #19

I've decided that while Google ostensibility makes it possible to search the world's knowledge*, that's just the bait. Google's main product is selling ads in what amounts to a glorified yellow pages. *In reality, about 1% of human knowledge, by some estimates.

You make it sound like searching 1% of human knowledge is not a fucking big deal. The Harry Potter books created an awesome series of magic, with instant teleportation, flying objects and invisibility coats. Yet they had nothing comparable to Google, which would have destroyed the plots to at least 3 books since the answers could have been found trivially that way.

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

#170

Post by nybble41 » Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 8:46 PM UTC

scott_w wrote: post #157

nybble41 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You’re trying to do business in another country with different rules. You are not doing business in another country. First, there may not be any "business" involved at all. More importantly, however, you are not in the other country . The other person is. If physical property is involved then someone—not necessarily you —is going to need to worry about import/export regulations when moving it across the border. Whe…

This is not about “data” moving over borders. This is about services being provided from one country to another. This is something governments already regulate within their borders (and have for centuries). This is something that’s already heavily regulated for other industries e.g. financial services. There’s nothing novel about the GDPR in that aspect.

> This is not about “data” moving over borders. This is about services being provided from one country to another.

Services which involve nothing but data, and thus still fall under the category of "data moving over borders". And, consequently, freedom of speech.