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

AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

wptavern.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 172 posts

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#101

Post by wisniewskit »

DeathArrow wrote: post #90
wisniewskit wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet if all you ever do is talk about how sucky it is, then you're effectively just part of the PR wings of Firefox's competition.

Telling someone he might have a grave disease might convince him to go to a doctor and seek treatment. Firefox is not dying because HN users criticize it. HN users might even use Firefox in a greater proportion than the general public. We try to protest, we try to raise awareness of the current situation. If instead of doing that we would actually said that Firefox is dead, it would be more detrimental. Users will tr…

Sure, keep telling yourself that you're the real hero. If folks like you really meant make a positive difference, you would have by now. Instead you endlessly try to take credit for "raising awareness" and "pressuring", which in reality just means leaving the actual work to others. You give yourself every excuse to not contribute anything tangible, then you blame them for failing while acting like some neglected oracle. Good on you for showing us how much better you are.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#102

Post by merrywhether »

readams wrote: post #91
daanlo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried changing the users in our gsuite organization in safari a few years ago. Pretty much a core feature. And it was so broken on safari that I couldn‘t change the users. I don‘t think it was malicious, but still incredibly bad considering gsuite/chrome connection.

Admittedly Safari is like IE of old though, always behind on standards and broken. Apple wants you on native apps.

Google is so good at ad domination they have free space in your head. Safari has a different development process which considers privacy, power consumption, and other user-centric ideas instead of just “how do we beat everyone else down in order to have better ad dominion over the internet”. You talk of standards, but in the time of WHATWG there really aren’t any, just ideas that vendors may or may not implement. If something is in Chrome but both Safari and Firefox have rejected it, do you really consider that a standard?

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#103

Post by lern_too_spel »

putlake wrote: post #9
lern_too_spel wrote: post #3

The 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…

> 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…

> This is not even wrong.

I provided a link that explains exactly how it works. The reason it's not even wrong is that it's absolutely correct. I say that as somebody who has actually read some AMP docs and understands the value proposal of same origin serving for prerendering.

> This is a very big deal and a huge trust buster

It would be if true, but blindly trusting the prosecutor is a huge patsy move on the author's part. They have no clue what the mechanism is. I provided it.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#104

Post by SllX »

Grakel wrote: post #72
Havoc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Honestly at this point, if you trust google you’re a fool. And same rest of FAANG. Though Apple and Netflix still seem to be evil-lite for now

Maybe we should call it MANGA now.

I know you’re joking, but I’m going to oppose that on prudential grounds. I don’t want a form of entertainment I enjoy mixed up with a grouping of companies people are incredibly critical of. Ruins the Google results too.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#105

Post by pixl97 »

jefftk wrote: post #60
lrem wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a Googler, not working on ads. The idea is that the advertiser ultimately wants to buy a certain amount of conversions. With their ad budget being roughly constant, better targeting means that you need to show fewer ads of that advertiser to get to that point. So, you're decreasing the denominator, increasing cost per impression. This is obviously oversimplified, because actual payment happens at the intermediate…

> the advertiser ultimately wants to buy a certain amount of conversions That's not right at all for a large segment of advertising: the cheaper conversions are, the more most advertisers are willing to spend. Imagine I currently earn a marginal profit of $10 on each conversion (widget sold etc): this means roughly I'm willing to pay up to $10 for a conversion that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Conversions that c…

>Raise the price (cost per conversion) and people will decrease the amount they buy.

This is just a form of supply/demand curve.

The issue here is Google controls most of the market, giving them far more power to optimize the supply curve to maximize Googles profit leaving the consumer no other competitor to fall back on to lower prices (FB maybe?, more likely to collude and keep prices high).

Google cannot act like ads are 'any other product' where there are healthy, competitive markets.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#106

Post by zzzbra »

benrapscallion wrote: post #39
ashtonkem wrote: post #30

Honestly at this point, if you trust google you’re a fool. It’s demonstrated itself to be unreliable, capricious, and absolutely willing to break the law if it thinks it can get away with it. Do business with them if you absolutely must, but under no circumstance should you actually trust them.

Seconded. As such, I’ve switched to Safari, DuckDuckGo, and Fastmail. But how does one escape their ubiquitous presence all over the web (Google analytics, ads)??? They’re like a creepy neighbor who keeps following you around.

Firefox is also really worth checking out again.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#107

Post by lern_too_spel »

MichaelJanssen wrote: post #42
cerved wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how is this done in CSS?

AMP sites have a 8 seconds-delayed CSS animation on the body element, turning visibility from hidden to visible. This animation is turned off instantly (as far as I can say) by Javascript. However when you block Javascript entirely or block ampproject.org you have to endure the whole 8 seconds. I inject "body {animation: none !important}" into all pages to remedy this.

That slows down AMP pages relative to nom-AMP pages when JavaScript is disabled. This is not in the complaint.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#108

Post by DeathArrow »

wisniewskit wrote: post #101
DeathArrow wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling someone he might have a grave disease might convince him to go to a doctor and seek treatment. Firefox is not dying because HN users criticize it. HN users might even use Firefox in a greater proportion than the general public. We try to protest, we try to raise awareness of the current situation. If instead of doing that we would actually said that Firefox is dead, it would be more detrimental. Users will tr…

Sure, keep telling yourself that you're the real hero. If folks like you really meant make a positive difference, you would have by now. Instead you endlessly try to take credit for "raising awareness" and "pressuring", which in reality just means leaving the actual work to others. You give yourself every excuse to not contribute anything tangible, then you blame them for failing while acting like some neglected orac…

>Sure, keep telling yourself that you're the real hero. If folks like you really meant make a positive difference, you would have by now. Instead you endlessly try to take credit for "raising awareness" and "pressuring", which in reality just means leaving the actual work to others. You give yourself every excuse to not contribute anything tangible, then you blame them for failing while acting like some neglected oracle. Good on you for showing us how much better you are.

I don't get why you use a so dismissive tone? I replied to a comment that wasn't just about me but about all HN users criticizing current state in which Firefox is.

What do you expect from us? Donate money to a mismanaged product so the management can raise their bonuses? Quit our jobs and start forking Firefox?

Nobody is a hero. Just some people are not sticking their heads in the sand because sticking heads in the sand wouldn't help.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#109

Post by lern_too_spel »

kall wrote: post #44
lern_too_spel wrote: post #3

The 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…

I have only a basic understanding of online advertising. Is that really how AMP ads work? If they are pre-rendered before the user clicks the link, when does the auction happen? Does it do a speculative auction when you load the search results page? It so, that is an incredibly unfair advantage for google. Or do you just mean that all possible ad creatives are server-side-rendered, so to speak, and kept ready in a go…

> In that case any ad could still trigger it‘s impression with a viewport listener, if that‘s what google needed them to do.

With AMP, Google (and Microsoft and the other companies running AMP caches) can verify that the ad doesn't trigger an impression until viewed, which they need to do because they serve it themselves.

https://developers.google.com/authorized-buyers/rtb/amp-ads

> Does it do a speculative auction when you load the search results page?

Yes.

> It so, that is an incredibly unfair advantage for google.

Why would it be? Anybody can participate in the auction.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#110

Post by NelsonMinar »

As a former Googler responsible for some of its first developer products, this AMP story has been really disappointing. If the allegations are true, what an embarrassment. Imagine making your career out of promoting AMP to developers and lying to them. Imagine being the engineer who inserted the one second delay for non-AMP ads.

(I left Google many years before AMP was ever a thing, so no inside knowledge.)

Post reply on HN