The Problem with AMP • Hacker News Board

Re: The Problem with AMP

#191

Post by nailer » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:14 AM UTC

greenspot wrote: post #162

Google is abusing its powers. The search rank is our currency and Google has pushed AMP sites to the top for some while. So, everybody is now building weird AMP layers for their sites. We went from a free to a proprietary mobile web in just a few weeks. And we can't do anything. It feels like the times when the Internet Explorer tried to rule except that more people were complaining. The open solution to a faster mob…

> I'm wondering who at Google is responsible for AMP. Who created AMP's random specs (no external CSS but external fonts files, preference for four selected font providers, no JS but their JS, probable ranking preference of Google cached AMP sites, etc.).

A bunch of people, but Malte Ubl is one of the main people and has the best tech talks on why they picked the techniques and hacks they did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfekj564rs0

I'd recommend watching that for how it works than asking @amphtml questions.

Node people: I did a node specific presentation at LNUG you might like:

https://mikemaccana.github.io/quick-wins-with-node-and-amp/#...

I use AMP on CertSimple but appreciate that AMP favors 'speed achieved using specific techniques' rather than speed per se. There's the RealPolitik element where we as site owners have to do what Google say.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#192

Post by jpkeisala » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:17 AM UTC

robryan wrote: post #8

AMP is okay for news, but terrible for other forms of content. The reddit implementation is way less usable on mobile than going to their actual site. It also results in lower quality news appearing at the top of searches in cases where they have implemented AMP and the better sources haven't.

I quite like it for recipes as well.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#193

Post by rocqua » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:24 AM UTC

HugoDaniel wrote: post #182

twsted wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

G+ wasn't enough for them to realize that imitation is not a good strategy to use against FB

In an alternative interpretation. G+ and AMP are both attempts by google to maintain relevance when faced with obsolescence due to becoming infrastructure rather than product.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#194

Post by nothrabannosir » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:39 AM UTC

wheelerwj wrote: post #172

greenspot wrote: post #162

Google is abusing its powers. The search rank is our currency and Google has pushed AMP sites to the top for some while. So, everybody is now building weird AMP layers for their sites. We went from a free to a proprietary mobile web in just a few weeks. And we can't do anything. It feels like the times when the Internet Explorer tried to rule except that more people were complaining. The open solution to a faster mob…

> Google is abusing its powers. They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take back our internet. Edit, i love the downvotes for this. Google is legally required to act in their shareholders best interests. You all should understand fiduciary duty. They are building long term value for a massive (and growing) customer segment at the expense o…

You're right, but that point isn't relevant.

What you're giving is an explanation, not an excuse. Nobody is incredulous at Google's motivations (money). We're just not satisfied with it.

Before you can solve a problem, you must identify it clearly. That's what we're doing here. Saying "yeah but it's only logical" isn't the point. Look:

> It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take back our internet.

You mean, like discussing why AMP is bad and why we shouldn't use it?

Re: The Problem with AMP

#195

Post by beebeebush » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:45 AM UTC

Future is heading day by day more towards internet ghetto's direction.

People's freedom of speech is controlled by Google, facebook or some other corporation.

By keepining very limited development requirements these "instant" ghettos also can fully controll all content.

People please, do not use these ghettos. Don't loose rights to have own pages or technology. I'm sure static site in good cdn is almost instant also.

Why to limit your content only for google also ??

I'm more and more against these major corporations daily.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#196

Post by wheelerwj » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:46 AM UTC

nothrabannosir wrote: post #194

wheelerwj wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google is abusing its powers. They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take back our internet. Edit, i love the downvotes for this. Google is legally required to act in their shareholders best interests. You all should understand fiduciary duty. They are building long term value for a massive (and growing) customer segment at the expense o…

You're right, but that point isn't relevant. What you're giving is an explanation, not an excuse. Nobody is incredulous at Google's motivations (money). We're just not satisfied with it. Before you can solve a problem, you must identify it clearly. That's what we're doing here. Saying "yeah but it's only logical" isn't the point. Look: > It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take back our internet. You mean,…

No, everyone on here shouldn't need explanation on why amp is bad.

Especially when its a closed system that Google insists serving to your customers from Google's private servers. No technologist or business person would/should ever stand for that. Yet we are forced to.

The discussion should really be, how do we dislodge Google from its current entrenched position.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#197

Post by teddyh » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:48 AM UTC

alistproducer2 wrote: post #30

I make my own amp pages by keeping JavaScript turned off on my phone. 95℅ of pages work and load instantly. Those that don't, I turn on JavaScript. If I go to those pages a lot I add them to my exception list. Sorry but I'm not an amp believer.

Please note: ℅ is not %

Re: The Problem with AMP

#198

Post by minijackson » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:48 AM UTC

CPP (Content Performance Policy) is an open, standardized alternative to AMP, that may need help to finish it:

Draft: http://wicg.github.io/ContentPerformancePolicy/ Github: https://github.com/wicg/ContentPerformancePolicy/ Launch article: https://timkadlec.com/2016/02/a-standardized-alternative-to-... HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12787462

Re: The Problem with AMP

#199

Post by wheelerwj » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:50 AM UTC

minijackson wrote: post #198

CPP (Content Performance Policy) is an open, standardized alternative to AMP, that may need help to finish it: Draft: http://wicg.github.io/ContentPerformancePolicy/ Github: https://github.com/wicg/ContentPerformancePolicy/ Launch article: https://timkadlec.com/2016/02/a-standardized-alternative-to-... HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12787462

This wont matter because google isn't prioritizing CPP sites. Google has the majority of the traffic and it gets to dictate that amp gets preferential treatment.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#200

Post by matt4077 » Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:55 AM UTC

dzhiurgis wrote: post #20

So the argument against AMP is someone's broken implementation and "security" of Google's CDN. Sounds like terrible arguments. That said, Google should give option to opt-out from CDN caching (if they don't already) as otherwise implementing AMP gives Google the right to host your content on their domain.

You can't implicitly grant licenses just by implementing something like AMP. That said, the DMCA contains specific language for caches (and search) so they probably have that right anyway.