I don't like AMP, but I like this headline less. That is classic media trolling. They don't know what "publishers" actually feel about Google and there is no evidence than anything is "irreparably broken". It is actually remarkable how quickly businesses forgive and forget.
AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
11–20 of 172 posts
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#12I don't like AMP, but I like this headline less. That is classic media trolling. They don't know what "publishers" actually feel about Google and there is no evidence than anything is "irreparably broken". It is actually remarkable how quickly businesses forgive and forget.
During the last antitrust suite against Google it was confirmed that Google developed AMP to combat header bidding in order to protect their price arbitrage cut in their ad exchange. Publishers are now weaponizing against Google.
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#13The author seems to not understand AMP at all. AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. You could call that a "nice comparative boost," but there is nothing sinister about that. https://amp.dev/about/ads/ I don't even work on the web…
Have you followed any of the links in the article and read about all the documents unsealed in the case against Google? Or have you even read the article?
Yes, yes, and yes. Have you? The claims quoted in this article were provided without any documents from Google, let alone a mechanism for how the non-AMP ad delay worked. I described the mechanism. What part of the description did you not understand, so I can clarify it for you?
The author made the elementary mistake of blindly trusting the prosecutor without putting on his engineer hat to figure out if the prosecutor's allegations made any sense whatsoever.
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#14If they are really displeased with Google, and I'm sure they are, they should run a campaign to invite users of their sites to install a browser different than Chrome. If they manage to destroy Google's quasi monopoly on the browser they'll make Google less powerful overall.
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#15If they are really displeased with Google, and I'm sure they are, they should run a campaign to invite users of their sites to install a browser different than Chrome. If they manage to destroy Google's quasi monopoly on the browser they'll make Google less powerful overall.
Chrome’s stronghold on the web and their ability to delay the death of the cookie allows advertisers to continue doing micro targeting and thus paying more per impression. Publishers would be shooting themselves in the foot if they steer users away from Chrome.
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. This is not even wrong. I'm sorry; I never post just to criticize someone's comment. But yours was the top comment on the page and was, in addition to being wrong, condescending to an author…
It decreases load times for sites pulling in 20+ third party scripts. The purpose of AMP is to cut away that hot garbage. Sadly it hasn't worked at shaming these poorly designed sites into correcting their ways.
and what the lawsuit is alleging is that the opposite is also true: that AMP increased the load time for sites which load advertisements faster than AMP ads and "cut away that hot garbage" themselve, by introducing a preload delay for content to render
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. This is not even wrong. I'm sorry; I never post just to criticize someone's comment. But yours was the top comment on the page and was, in addition to being wrong, condescending to an author…
It decreases load times for sites pulling in 20+ third party scripts. The purpose of AMP is to cut away that hot garbage. Sadly it hasn't worked at shaming these poorly designed sites into correcting their ways.
> The purpose of AMP
The stated purpose of AMP was to cut down load times. Does it do that? Sure. But the class action suit alleges that the intended purpose of AMP was to interfere with header bidding for ad placements in order to abuse Google’s monopoly power.
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#18I don't like AMP, but I like this headline less. That is classic media trolling. They don't know what "publishers" actually feel about Google and there is no evidence than anything is "irreparably broken". It is actually remarkable how quickly businesses forgive and forget.
During the last antitrust suite against Google it was confirmed that Google developed AMP to combat header bidding in order to protect their price arbitrage cut in their ad exchange. Publishers are now weaponizing against Google.
Isn't the antitrust suite still ongoing?
I thought we're still talking of accusations, not proven facts (tho I believe them true).
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#19Absolutely... for a week or so
Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives
#20If they are really displeased with Google, and I'm sure they are, they should run a campaign to invite users of their sites to install a browser different than Chrome. If they manage to destroy Google's quasi monopoly on the browser they'll make Google less powerful overall.
Chrome’s stronghold on the web and their ability to delay the death of the cookie allows advertisers to continue doing micro targeting and thus paying more per impression. Publishers would be shooting themselves in the foot if they steer users away from Chrome.
If they’re paying more per impression how is that shooting themselves in the foot?