wtf is this guy talking about? This article has so many errors, it should be retracted.
Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
131–140 of 159 posts
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
>if google made some machine verifiable guidelines for "light" webpages that would earn them this "icon". Linked from the "fat" page by some "link" meta tag. That is exactly what AMP is; with the exception (a huge one, I know) that Google also then caches the page on their server and serves it from a google.com host.
For Google, the hijack is the prime feature; AMP is the PR vehicle that makes it swallow. AMP could have been done without the huge exception, but then Google couldn't profit from it.
How does google profit from serving these pages opposed to original content creator?
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#133Despite understanding and largely agreeing with the concerns against AMP Cache that get discussed any time an AMP article gets posted on HN, I cannot stress enough on how relieved I feel to see the lightning icon next to a mobile search result, especially on my now aging phone. Most content websites have become such a massive crapfest of ad-bloat, bad UX, huge page sizes and general usability hell that it's nigh impo…
Same here. I can load sites with AMP (or its competitors) faster on my low-end to mid-range phones fine, and on a metered Internet connection.
As much as I don't like it on a webmaster / blogger perspective, it does help a lot in getting a wider audience than by only offering a "responsive theme".
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
For Google, the hijack is the prime feature; AMP is the PR vehicle that makes it swallow. AMP could have been done without the huge exception, but then Google couldn't profit from it.
The fast, non-blocking content loading is the main feature. I took a radical path when developing my site and made it AMP-first. Instead of having an AMP version of each page, every page is its own AMP version because it's an AMP page. Even served from my cheapo shared web host and not Google's AMP cache, I have pretty-much instant loading of all pages: http://multithreaded.link/2017/08/lyft-customer-acquisition-...…
[deleted]
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For Google , the hijack is the prime feature what does google get out of it? The experience is better for users who like fast, lightweight pages, but as far as i can tell there's no tangible direct benefit to google when you load an AMP page. The only benefit to google is if their users like the experience and continue to use Google search so they can access AMP-cached pages. If users don't like AMP, google gets no…
Google's entire business model is tracking users as they use the internet in order to target ads. Every AMPed page is contributing work towards improving the effectiveness and appeal of Google's product (selling ads), by adding data to the targeting algorithms. If every piece of content on the internet is tracked -- through full UX hijack on Google's infrastructure -- that might be a trillion dollar holy grail.
The ux hijack will progress over time as well. Google knows how to boil users slowly so they never notice the heat.
AMP carousel pages have some subtle capture features that regular AMP pages don't. They will add more, then slowly move them to the regular AMP pages over time.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#136Despite understanding and largely agreeing with the concerns against AMP Cache that get discussed any time an AMP article gets posted on HN, I cannot stress enough on how relieved I feel to see the lightning icon next to a mobile search result, especially on my now aging phone. Most content websites have become such a massive crapfest of ad-bloat, bad UX, huge page sizes and general usability hell that it's nigh impo…
Personally I don't think the idea behind AMP is bad. But the implementation is dangerous as it artificially fragments the web. I guess fewer would oppose AMP if google made some machine verifiable guidelines for "light" webpages that would earn them this "icon". Linked from the "fat" page by some "link" meta tag.
It's pretty easy to detect the number of external scripts, media objects, fonts and images a page attempts to load.
But that wouldn't give google control and importantly, a sure-fire run around same-origin privacy protections.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I don't think the idea behind AMP is bad. But the implementation is dangerous as it artificially fragments the web. I guess fewer would oppose AMP if google made some machine verifiable guidelines for "light" webpages that would earn them this "icon". Linked from the "fat" page by some "link" meta tag.
>if google made some machine verifiable guidelines for "light" webpages that would earn them this "icon". Linked from the "fat" page by some "link" meta tag. That is exactly what AMP is; with the exception (a huge one, I know) that Google also then caches the page on their server and serves it from a google.com host.
You don't need new js-required-to-render markup to make a page lightweight
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
For Google, the hijack is the prime feature; AMP is the PR vehicle that makes it swallow. AMP could have been done without the huge exception, but then Google couldn't profit from it.
The fast, non-blocking content loading is the main feature. I took a radical path when developing my site and made it AMP-first. Instead of having an AMP version of each page, every page is its own AMP version because it's an AMP page. Even served from my cheapo shared web host and not Google's AMP cache, I have pretty-much instant loading of all pages: http://multithreaded.link/2017/08/lyft-customer-acquisition-...…
> The fast, non-blocking content loading is the main feature.
You don't need requires-js-to-render markup or a cache operated by a privacy whoring ad company to make a page load quickly.
Edit: also, comparing to react or whatever js framework is like saying "look at my new cast iron shoes, they're so much lighter than those old lead ones".
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's entire business model is tracking users as they use the internet in order to target ads. Every AMPed page is contributing work towards improving the effectiveness and appeal of Google's product (selling ads), by adding data to the targeting algorithms. If every piece of content on the internet is tracked -- through full UX hijack on Google's infrastructure -- that might be a trillion dollar holy grail.
you think google doesn't already track the links you click on the SERP? they aren't learning anything new by putting a tracking code on the page that link takes you to.
People don't share google result links.
People absolutely share amp links.
Also, amp being google.com hosted means no more pesky same-origin privacy protections like limiting cookies.
Re: Google AMP is bad for e-commerce
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google's entire business model is tracking users as they use the internet in order to target ads. Every AMPed page is contributing work towards improving the effectiveness and appeal of Google's product (selling ads), by adding data to the targeting algorithms. If every piece of content on the internet is tracked -- through full UX hijack on Google's infrastructure -- that might be a trillion dollar holy grail.
I don't understand why this matters though? Google is tracking you. If you don't want to be data-mined, you shouldn't be using Google. If you are using Google, it means you don't mind being tracked. It means you are placing the convenience that Google provides above your concerns about what a faceless corporation can do with your data. If you don't mind being tracked, AMP is not a problem. I understand how you could…
seriously? If you want to use any of a companies services, you have to agree to like any and all of their future changes to said service, no matter how monopoly-like they are or how many privacy protections they hack around?