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

The Problem with AMP

80x24.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 353 posts

Re: The Problem with AMP

#111

Post by [deleted] »

magicalist wrote: post #45
kristianp wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example of how to view reddit via AMP? If I just search for "reddit" on my Android phone for example, there are no AMP links to reddit, only Business Insider etc.

On my phone (chrome on android), basically any google search result from reddit goes to the amp version of the page. (with all five visible comments, and since the full comments are almost certainly what I was searching for, I end up having to click through to the full page anyway every time)

[deleted]

Re: The Problem with AMP

#112

Post by twsted »

65827 wrote: post #15

It's so strange to see Google repeating all the same mistakes AOL did so many years ago. No I don't want your fucking garden, I want the network. If you get in the way of that I'm done with you.

Yes and the problem is Facebook. Google is fighting FB.

In many respects I like gardens, I like curated contents.

But I like the web more. The web needs diversity. We need more search engines for instance.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#113

Post by sitkack »

freyir wrote: post #80
flukus wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're stuck on an AMP page in your mobile browser, you can click on the browser's "Request desktop site" option to load the full page. So you have to load the AMP page and then a potentially bloated normal page. That's AMP doing the exact opposite of it's intended (or at least stated) purpose. Noscript, flashblock and adblock have done far more for page speeds than than AMP ever will.

Worst of all, many AMP pages won't load for me unless I disable Adblock. So now I have to degrade my browsing experience everywhere else to cater to AMP.

DING! The sound of google getting their ad money back.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#114

Post by lips »

sfifs wrote: post #106
tehlike wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am really curious if an ordinary user gets frustrated with AMP as much as an HN reader does. PS: Not intending to be sarcastic. PS2: I work for google, but not on something amp related.

As I remarked elsewhere, I actually find AMP an excellent and speedy experience. I read articles on a mobile connection in India primarily and I now invariably click AMP news story options vs. others

Have you used other compensating mechanisms, like tap-to-show images?

Re: The Problem with AMP

#115

Post by rezashirazian »

I recently build a dictionary based on WordNet and decided to AMP all the pages. I didn't have any issues and honestly it was fairly straightforward. (http://www.wordcadet.com)

Again I'm not doing anything fancy, I don't handle any user data (JS breach at google is least of my concern) or have any concern regarding where Google might take AMP.

I personally like the idea behind AMP. With all these over the top JS libraries and bloating web applications, a restrict markup that enforces speed over spectacle is a positive change.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#116

Post by theWatcher37 »

paco3346 wrote: post #110

Ugh, why does nobody ever point out that AMP and Google displaying AMP are 2 different things? Yes, Google is a huge sponsor in the AMP world but they aren't the only ones involved. AMP itself isn't so bad- asynchronous Javascript (not no script as the article suggests) and it is still valid HTML- it just has extra properties on tags (just how Angular does).

AMP is cancer. I go to a search engine to find content, not your URL-obscuring crappy implementation that I can't even readily share without opening up the URL and dissecting what I originally wanted from it. It's 2017, my phone has a decent quad core and 1080p screen... I don't need your gimped "mobile" version and I don't want you locking me into your platform every time I try and make a search.

It's absolutely baffling how anyone at google thought this was a good idea. I mean really, how do you mess something so simple up this bad?

The user experience is terrible, the implementation is terrible, the fundamental technical idea is terrible... it's gotta go back.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#117

Post by theWatcher37 »

jedmeyers wrote: post #83
conductr wrote: post #18

On AMP page, clicking the X on the header box should load the HTML page. Instead it kicks you back to the search results. I think I would be okay if they fixed that one thing.

That's my main pet peeve with AMP as well. In my mind the [x] in the top bar is almost exclusively associated with 'remove the bar' behavior in Safari on iOS.

Google: "let's completely reinvent our core product in terms of user experience... and mess it up"

Google is search, everything else is secondary. 20 people in a room testing this should have been all the red flags they needed to fix it before launch.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#118

Post by kobayashi »

cavemanmike wrote: post #2

Using https://encrypted.google.com/ to avoid AMP is a great tip. I'll be doing that, does anybody have more information on what that URL is for? Is it possible to set it as default on iOS/Android somehow? AMP really frustratingly breaks link sharing, and I'd like to totally avoid it.

It's from the era before which Google defaulted to TLS. Nowadays, the only known difference relates to clicking of links. Here's the info from SE[0]:

>1. Clicking on an ad:

> - https://google.com : Google will take you to an HTTP redirection page where they'd append your search query to the referrer information.

> - https://encrypted.google.com : If the advertiser uses HTTP, Google will not let the advertiser know about your query. If the advertiser uses HTTPS, they will receive the referrer information normally (including your search query).

>2. Clicking on a normal search result:

> - https://google.com : If the website uses HTTP, Google will take you to an HTTP redirection page and will not append your search query to the referrer information. They'll only tell the website that you're coming from Google. If it uses HTTPS, it will receive referrer information normally.

> - https://encrypted.google.com : If the website you click in the results uses HTTP, it will have no idea where you're coming from or what your search query is. If it uses HTTPS, it will receive referrer information normally.

[0] http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/32367/what-is-th...

Re: The Problem with AMP

#119

Post by tehlike »

lips wrote: post #114
sfifs wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I remarked elsewhere, I actually find AMP an excellent and speedy experience. I read articles on a mobile connection in India primarily and I now invariably click AMP news story options vs. others

Have you used other compensating mechanisms, like tap-to-show images?

not exactly the same thing, right? js environment also matters a lot.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#120

Post by EpicEng »

conductr wrote: post #18

On AMP page, clicking the X on the header box should load the HTML page. Instead it kicks you back to the search results. I think I would be okay if they fixed that one thing.

That would be wonderful, and it was what I _expected_ to happen the first time I tried it.
Post reply on HN