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

AMP for email is bad

tutanota.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 161 posts

Re: AMP for email is bad

#111

Post by joshuamorton »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #68
joshuamorton wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're correct. There's nothing about amp4email that requires a Gmail account. I'm actually pretty sure that if you use an imap client it whatever, you could view amp email from some site without ever communicating with a third party.

It would still need to talk to your email provider's AMP cache, presumably, though, unlike a normal email which you download once and then do not need to reach out to the server for again.

I don't think there's a need for an amp cache with amp4email. The privacy concerns that make an amp cache necessary don't apply in the same way, only the security concerns that require a safe html subset. So an imap client could cache the amp js locally, and render dynamic content by querying the sender directly.

I could be wrong though, but I believe that works.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#112

Post by dang »

jmiserez wrote: post #98

Off topic, but voting on comments should not primarily be used to signal disagreement. "Good" comments (for some definition of "good") can be upvoted even if they argue a viewpoint you disagree with. Otherwise all that remains is an echo chamber.

On HN, downvoting for disagreement has always been fine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20256420 and marked it off-topic.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#113

Post by Alex3917 »

simias wrote: post #93
javagram wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that html email is used because it works a lot better (i.e. people DO want it) Try sending your marketing campaign as plain text and then try sending it as carefully crafted HTML mail. Unless your target is a specific small segment of users who love text/plain, HTML will do better and make you more money.

I don't know what's the name of this phenomenon but it reminds me of bass-boosted stereos and over-saturated TV screens. Objectively, from a signal processing theory standpoint, it's not superior to a properly calibrated monitor. But subjectively it seems that we collectively like it when dynamics get crushed to loony-tunes levels. I feel like HTML email is the same way. People think they want it, but in my experienc…

> Ever been forwarded one of these corporate-type emails where people reply all over the place, each using their own convention of color and typesetting and emphasis markers, with bits of "rich text" signatures and images littered throughout? That's a bloody terrible experience.

https://www.prettyfwd.com

Created to fix that exact issue.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#114

Post by SergeAx »

The article looks a bit suspicious and FUD to me: first they say "here is five reasons why AMP in Gmail is bad" and then just put out five general essays about how Google is bad.

AMP as tech is certainly good for users. Google pushes it a tad too hard and sometimes is at the edge of abusing it, but overall effect on UX is very positive. There's no monopoly here: anyone can take advantage of this tech (and I believe most search engines do). AMP in email is even more innocent: in the end, you already are inside Gmail inbox, what could go wrong from there?

Current Gmail actions[1] are very useful, and if AMP could do even better - count me in.

[1] https://developers.google.com/gmail/markup/overview#gmail_ac...

edit: link to Gmail actions

Re: AMP for email is bad

#116

Post by mulmen »

SquareWheel wrote: post #43
andy_ppp wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people here disagree with you, hence why you’ll be down voted. Would AMP be used if it wasn’t for the news carousel - nope - so Google is definitely using their position to embrace and extend open standards.

> Most people here disagree with you, hence why you’ll be down voted. No doubt. And it's really unfortunate that bias is trumping facts in this case. > Google is definitely using their position to embrace and extend open standards. There's nothing wrong with embracing or extending technologies. WebComponents, in this case. But if you're hinting at a third step then I'm sorry but open-source by definition cannot be ex…

I believe this is a reference to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extingu.... Open source does absolutely nothing to resist this approach.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#117

Post by hn23 »

jchw wrote: post #99
andreareina wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So now email clients need to implement a javascript engine as well as an html engine? For what benefit to users? At what cost to users? AMP for email solves a nonexistent problem.

>So now email clients need to implement a javascript engine as well as an html engine? Webmail can do JS. Clients using full HTML engines like MSHTML, Gecko or Webkit shouldn't have an issue either. Text-based clients are the obvious exception, and they should still be rendering the same plaintext mail they've always been rendering. Clients can also not implement AMP for e-mail, which I imagine is going to be the cas…

The only MUA where reply is complicated is Outlook because it is still not possible to quote easily.

Plaintext mail should not just continue to function. A plain text mail should be default.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#118

Post by eikenberry »

javagram wrote: post #88
swiley wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a pain because no one wants it! Emails are for text, if you have something to say you can write it out.

Except that html email is used because it works a lot better (i.e. people DO want it) Try sending your marketing campaign as plain text and then try sending it as carefully crafted HTML mail. Unless your target is a specific small segment of users who love text/plain, HTML will do better and make you more money.

If your argument for HTML email is spam, then I think you just defeated yourself.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#119

Post by josteink »

cromwellian wrote: post #109
josteink wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Email is completely different than the web. You cant do more than basic html like displaying text and pictures. Embedding videos? Slideshows for products? Interactivity like forms? Display realtime information? EVERYTHING IS NOT POSSIBLE! But it will be with amp4email. This alone is the reason I oppose AMP email. I want email to be a simple, static text-based communication platform. None of that full HTML applicati…

Email already has HTML in it and has for decades, hell, there were startups dedicated to it like Zaplets et al. AMP doesn't enable HTML email, it was already enabled by Outlook 97.

But not HTML applications. JavaScript is banned. Dynamic content is banned.

This is good. We should aim to keep it this way.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#120

Post by x3haloed »

SergeAx wrote: post #114

The article looks a bit suspicious and FUD to me: first they say "here is five reasons why AMP in Gmail is bad" and then just put out five general essays about how Google is bad. AMP as tech is certainly good for users. Google pushes it a tad too hard and sometimes is at the edge of abusing it, but overall effect on UX is very positive. There's no monopoly here: anyone can take advantage of this tech (and I believe m…

Exactly. There isn't a cohesive point about why AMP for the email is bad, just a list of 5 negative things. I can come up with a list of 5 negative things about anything.
Post reply on HN