AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by zeepzeep » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #128

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.

Publishers did not want to have to refactor their page templates with a bunch of AMP markup to please Google. For most companies, it was a question of whether they were OK risking being left behind if other publishers got favourable treatment running stories on AMP validated pages. This comes back to Google's domination of both search and Adwords. And it comes back to the unfortunate reality that people don't want to…

Contextual ads were generating revenue before google had access to every single http request

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

#132

Post by michael1999 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

kinlan wrote: post #38

As someone mentioned directly in this blog post I can tell you where I came from with the event at least. Trust. Making sure developers know what we're working and why we think it's important and when we can show everyone the data to back up our rationale. I think we still have a long way to go, but it's something I've always strived for my team (devrel) to do. I felt that it was important to ask these questions on t…

There is no fancy Latin name for the error of giving known liars the benefit of the doubt, but there should be. Google has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar, and your protestations that you work in a different department provide negative reassurance.

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

#133

Post by rchaud » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 4:33 PM UTC

DeathArrow wrote: post #21

>what he identified as Google’s “vision for the web’s future and examples of best-in-class web experiences.” I'm not sure Google should be the only one to decide the web's future. Since they quasi monopolized the browser, they act like they own the web.

Not just the browser. They also own text search, video search and display advertising.

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

#134

Post by dmitriid » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 4:40 PM UTC

leeoniya wrote: post #112

dmitriid wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a narrative (very heavily supported by google btw) that really needs to die. Safari is decidedly neither behind nor as broken as the narrative suggests. Safari ships about as many WebAPIs as Firefox does, and no one blames Firefox to be "behind on standards". More, Firefox is increasingly siding with Safari when deciding not to implement certain Chrome-only "standards". Also see this nice take over at Quirksm…

Safari's slow release cadence (typically tied to OS version upgrades) does leave it more broken and for longer than Firefox, Chrome, Opera and other browsers that are updated more frequently and not tied to the OS. just recently i ran into incompatibilities with Safari https://github.com/leeoniya/uPlot/issues/538#issuecomment-87...

> browsers that are updated more frequently and not tied to the OS.

This is true. Apple's inane insistence that everything has to be updated only once a year is truly baffling.

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

#135

Post by ramesh31 » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 5:04 PM UTC

chrischapman wrote: post #32

ramesh31 wrote: post #27

>Announcements and discussions on hot topics impacting the greater web community at the event included Google’s Privacy Sandbox initiative, improvements to Core Web Vitals and performance tools, and new APIs for Progressive Web Apps (PWAs). Stop trying to make PWAs happen. It's not going to happen.

It's somewhat off topic but why do you say this? Is it the 'progressive' issue or the 'web app' issue. My view is that a browser is a really good way to deliver applications - in fact, I prefer them to any other form of application. I'm not too hung up on the whole 'progressive' thing these days but a NoJS application still has it's benefits.

>It's somewhat off topic but why do you say this? Is it the 'progressive' issue or the 'web app' issue.

It's the Google issue. They've been shoving these APIs down our throats trying to make it happen solely to build up the Chrome ecosystem. Firefox does not and will not ever support them, and they will never become an actual web standard, although Google has tried to present it as such.

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

#136

Post by CameronNemo » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

spideymans wrote: post #6

CameronNemo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been seeing more apple.news URLs.

Where do you find apple.news links on the web? Or are they being sent to you by people? Not being argumentative, I’ve just never came across a link to an Apple News article.

Being sent them, yeah.

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

#137

Post by joshuamorton » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 5:21 PM UTC

ramesh31 wrote: post #135

chrischapman wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's somewhat off topic but why do you say this? Is it the 'progressive' issue or the 'web app' issue. My view is that a browser is a really good way to deliver applications - in fact, I prefer them to any other form of application. I'm not too hung up on the whole 'progressive' thing these days but a NoJS application still has it's benefits.

>It's somewhat off topic but why do you say this? Is it the 'progressive' issue or the 'web app' issue. It's the Google issue. They've been shoving these APIs down our throats trying to make it happen solely to build up the Chrome ecosystem. Firefox does not and will not ever support them, and they will never become an actual web standard, although Google has tried to present it as such.

Firefox does support them though (but only on mobile), which makes it seem like there isn't a principled argument against them

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

#138

Post by Grakel » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 5:56 PM UTC

SllX wrote: post #104

Grakel wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was joking, but since we're here,... MAGNA?

Edit, oo, I got it: MAANG. That way we can say, "Come on, MAANG!"

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

#139

Post by is_true » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 6:20 PM UTC

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.

You might not trust Google, but you cannot stop doing business with them unfortunately. If you are a publisher you need Google's traffic, and if you don't play by their rules you run with disadvantage with your competitors.

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

#140

Post by acoard » Sat, Nov 06, 2021, 6:27 PM UTC

riffraff wrote: post #18

DevKoala wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

You are right they are largely allegations. I just checked, and it's not like we have smoking gun emails in disocvery as far as I can tell, though happy to be mistaken.

>249. The speed benefits Google marketed were also at least partly a result of Google’s throttling. Google throttles the load time of non-AMP ads by giving them artificial one-second delays in order to give Google AMP a “nice comparative boost.” Throttling non-AMP ads slows down header bidding, which Google then uses to denigrate header bidding for being too slow. “Header Bidding can often increase latency of web pages and create security flaws when executed incorrectly,” Google falsely claimed. Internally, Google employees grappled with “how to [publicly] justify [Google] making something slower.” [0]

[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.56...