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

141–150 of 353 posts

Re: The Problem with AMP

#141

Post by niftich »

akras14 wrote: post #135
jedmeyers wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They viewed Google as platform and clicking x, takes user back to the platform. This was one of my biggest complains about the AMP project form the start. According to AMP team lead, however, the user testing on regular (not tech) users showed, that x did what people expected. I really think AMP can benefit a lot from PR stand point by letting techies opt out from it, but leaving it on for "regular" users. See https:…

Interesting info, but whether or not it's true, it certainly benefits their strategy. I have no doubt that they want to push the narrative that Google (Search) is the 'platform' and the news from publishers they wrap is a tab or viewport that you can [x] (exit) out of, returning to the default 'blank' Google page.

The problem with that is that the UX is inconsistent between AMP results and web results. AMP results pretend they're this fake tab that can be "closed" and you return to Google, while web results take you away to the URL like you'd expect, which means navigation is the responsibility of the browser, and not of Google Search.

Frankly, this all would make more sense in the viewport-wrapping context of Google Chrome or Google News or the Google App rather than a behavior of Google Search, but that's not the limit of their ambition.

Or just, y'know, dress up the results page a bit more, and be honest about it. Brand the AMP subsection 'Read Instantly with AMP' and have it clearly and visibly wrap the results. This gains them a bunch of mindshare.

Or change the [x] to a 'back arrow', like their own splash page shows [1].

[1] http://imgur.com/a/vAtqq

Re: The Problem with AMP

#143

Post by cowardlydragon »

I think I was trapped on one of these AMP pages when I wanted an article and the link to it so I could send it to a friend, but the article was "trapped" with a google url and I couldn't get it.

It was like those old-school days where sites tried to put their frame around the window you were browsing so their ads constantly showed.

Or like the toolbar crapware.

This sucks.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#144

Post by astronautjones »

ivank wrote: post #32
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.

> does anybody have more information on what that URL is for? Many years ago, Google Search existed only on http:// and schools used filters to block searches that they didn't like. Then Google shipped https:// for search on www.google.com, upset the schools because they could no longer block just some searches, then moved encrypted search to encrypted.google.com so that the entire domain could be blocked: https://cl…

this seems so dumb... is the difference between schools blocking and governments blocking negligible to them?

Re: The Problem with AMP

#145

Post by astronautjones »

colept wrote: post #92
thesagan wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Controversial question: At what point would Google start to be considered an antitrust issue? I know the EU has made some noise about it, but I'm a bit surprised I haven't heard more about it here in the U.S.

In my opinion, they've already violated the trust of publishers. Take Google Lyrics for example: http://phandroid.com/2014/12/31/google-lyrics-search/ In all fairness, lyric sites were terrible. Slow, riddled with ads, and sometimes incorrect. While Google's lyrics are a great service to the user, they're at the top of search and displayed inline. There's no reason to go to lyric sites anymore. My biggest fear is Str…

They're also republishing peoples' artistic creations with no permission - same goes for "Band - Topic" on youtube. Many people that publish their music through epublishers have no idea that youtube will monetize the (audio-only) video uploads of their songs, and get hit with takedown notices if they try to upload it on their own. It happened to me, and we had to really hammer the intermediary epublisher to get youtube to reupload our own video (!).

Edit: on top of that, the video that got taken down was an iphone video of people dancing to a song playing over a stereo - kudos to how accurate their detection is, but goddamn!

Re: The Problem with AMP

#146

Post by briandear »

jimueller wrote: post #74
tschellenbach wrote: post #12

It's actually a pretty nifty feature when you're browsing the web from a plane's slow wifi.

I actually like the AMP pages. Aside from public radio sites and a handful of other sites, news pages are so full of ads and slow loading, especially on mobile, that they're unreadable. With AMP I can actually read articles from my local newspaper or TV station. I guess in this case, I see it as a win for fast loading pages with just the article I'm looking for. Using AMP is my way of fighting back against autoplayin…

I use Crystal for iOS and all that stuff is gone for me normally.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#147

Post by astronautjones »

whyileft wrote: post #38

The more I read about complaints about AMP, the more it dawns on me that there are still a fair amount of people that do not understand that the web is basically Google's product. Facebook and others have arrived to take significant time away from that product. Then combine that with things like Facebook Video and Instant Articles. Google is in a difficult position where Facebook may be able to start offering up a su…

Why not (complain about and be against) both?

Re: The Problem with AMP

#148

Post by mack73 »

Twirrim wrote: post #132
jshen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen ordinary users get frustrated with it, but they don't understand why. They don't know what AMP is, and they don't realize they are on an AMP page. For example, the URL bar says they are on Google but they are reading a Slate article. The web is already confusing enough, and AMP makes it worse. Many ordinary users think they are reading content from Google, like that famous CNN interview where a lady said, "…

I've seen people say about "fake news" articles that have google.com as the top domain (because AMP) as an indicator of some reliability. Google is unintentionally, but actively, harming their image by being associated with and promoting such content.

Fake news make little harm to Google, like an atomic bomb fired into the sun. Google supporting fake news, intentionally and actively, does marvelous things for that piece of misinformation and it gives credit to the publisher.

I hope this AMP experiment is soon over. As someone already said here, the web is confusing as it is. Google used to want to make things clearer, better. AMP is not. It's fixing symptoms instead of causes.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#149

Post by mcintyre1994 »

I don't generally disagree with this article but I'd be interested to see research behind "it is a lot easier to stop using the Facebook app or Apple News app than it is to avoid Google search." - for Facebook specifically.

I know a few people who view Facebook's app on their phone as the Internet and who would never think to Google search a question. I'd be interested to know how widespread that actually is among Facebook's vast user base, in comparison to how many use Google and avoid Facebook.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#150

Post by mcintyre1994 »

ejcx wrote: post #29

One thing I love about AMP, that seems to never be mentioned when people discuss it, is viewing AMP-HTML pages on my laptop. I wrote a small chrome extension that always forwards my page to the equivalent AMP page (if one exists) and the experience of reading the news is so much better. AMP pages off mobile are really really amazing. Compare Non-AMP[0] vs AMP[1] [0] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Trump-on-the-…

This just seems to make up for Google never implementing a reading mode for Chrome. I wonder if they plan to use AMP to provide one only for AMP sites.
Post reply on HN