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

161–170 of 172 posts

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

#161

Post by CRConrad »

Animats wrote: post #22

It was clear that Google had turned to the dark side when Eric Schmidt first spoke at the Search Engine Strategies conference in 2006. Until then, SEO was the enemy. Google and Yahoo had previously sponsored a conference in 2005 on squashing search engine spam. What's new is that Google has now managed to alienate ad-supported publishers, their paying customers, as well.

> What's new is that Google has now managed to alienate ad-supported publishers, their paying customers, as well.

Huh? No, "ad-supported" means these publishers are getting paid to display these ads, not paying for anything, so they aren't customers. They're getting paid, which means they're suppliers. (What they supply is the eyeballs, yours and mine and everybody else's, that consume the ads.)

In business, "the customer" is the one who pays for a good or service they wish to acquire: Here, that's the advertisers.

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

#162

Post by CRConrad »

mschuster91 wrote: post #127
criddell wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the biggest features from the past decade?

To name those I use in my daily work: WebRTC, img srcset, the video element, WebASM, media queries, CSS animations. I haven't had the chance to play with the new authentication stuff (Yubikey) yet. Yes, some of that, e.g. srcset, animations and media queries, was possible using Javascript... but god, it was awful to use, even more awful to debug (especially "stuttering" issues or unresponsive pages due to some animat…

> To name those I use in my daily work: WebRTC, img srcset, the video element, WebASM, media queries, CSS animations.

Sounds like you're in the business of making that crappy web bloat the rest of us despise. Which makes your whining about "download ten megabyte for ten kilobytes of content" doubly ironic.

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

#163

Post by CRConrad »

wisniewskit wrote: post #78
DeathArrow wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recognizing that Firefox is sucky is the first step to make it unsucky.

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.

The saddest thing of all is: Up until relatively recently Firefox was a lot less sucky, but then Mozilla quite deliberately suckified it.

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

#164

Post by CRConrad »

skinkestek wrote: post #111
DeathArrow wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ora…

> Donate money to a mismanaged product so the management can raise their bonuses? Quit our jobs and start forking Firefox? To make it worse you cannot donate towards the product, only towards the management (!) They are quite clear about this if you ask the right questions, but not until then so I guess a lot of people think they have donated towards the browser and have instead sponsored the foundation that milks th…

OT: Snart är det jul. Mmm, skinkstek...

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

#165

Post by CRConrad »

wisniewskit wrote: post #122
DeathArrow wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ora…

I would only like a bit more than the endless negativity, that's all. If you can't even offer that much, then why would I ever expect anything more? It's easy to blame others and excuse yourself, but if I could find the will to get a job at Mozilla to try to help the company to a better end, then why can't some of you folks who always act like you have all the answers? If we aren't willing or able to do better than M…

> if I could find the will to get a job at Mozilla

Is that a purely hypothetical if, or another way to say "since I could..."? If the former, then what gives you more right to criticize the GP than they have to criticize Mozilla?

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

#166

Post by CRConrad »

skinkestek wrote: post #94
thatguy0900 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every Firefox thread is filled with how sucky Firefox is, too. Might be driving just as many people to stay on Chrome.

Oh well, there's no harm in trying Firefox. For anybody who are similar to me and has a similar workload, Firefox is still much better, it just isn't order of magnitudes anymore.

IMO it isn't even "much" any more.

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

#167

Post by CRConrad »

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.

> Is it the 'progressive' issue or the 'web app' issue[?]

For me: Both.

> 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.

Eeurgh.

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

#168

Post by CRConrad »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #13
dmitriid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prosecuto…

>> Have you ... and ...?

>> Or have you even read the article?

> Yes, yes, and yes.

Not so much on that last "yes":

> The author ... without putting on his engineer hat

>>> Sarah Gooding

Putting on her engineer hat.

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

#169

Post by ec109685 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #153
ec109685 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not how it works at all. As you can see with the link you included, things like client IP address is sent along with the bid request. This happens after a user opens an amp article, not before. The one second delay is so that ads that aren’t sandboxed and loaded client side, won’t impact the reading experience. For ads that are loaded server side, they can ensure the quality is high enough that they can be dis…

> The one second delay is so that ads that aren’t sandboxed and loaded client side, won’t impact the reading experience. Where does it say that? The delay is from the ad spot not even being available to bid on until the user opens the article, some timeout to receive all the bids, and then some time to fetch the ad from the winner's ad server instead of returning the ad content immediately after the winner has been d…

No, there is still a bid placed at render time for the amp ads — it can just be stitched in as soon as it’s ready since it is known to not to impact rendering performance.
Post reply on HN