191–200 of 249 posts
What if it's not a bug, but Google testing user response (assuming Google is not stupid so Hanlon's razor may not apply)
Your post remined me of this twitter thread from one of mozzilla's developers: https://twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871240432660480 Downthread: """ And every time, they’d say, “oops. That was accidental. We’ll fix it in the next push in 2 weeks.” """
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it's unclear what other or newer industry it is supposedly helping them dominate. The entire web?
Indeed. They control the content, and the technology: It could become technically impossible to provide new alternatives for ads, privacy, or any other future use case or interaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would it even mean to be better RSS? The idea is sites can preload an AMP page safely so that when you click on it, it can display to the user instantly. In that specific case, isn’t Barb correct, no chills needed?
The fundamental change is that now the content comes from Google's servers. Google is hosting the Internet. Of course Google can't host illegal content on their service, right? And won't host content that goes against a future AMP user agreement... From there they can tighten the screws against competitors, or future attempts at privacy, or basically anything they get away with.
Arguably this means that Google is breaking point 11 of their own AMP Cache Guidelines [1]. If I ran any AMP pages, I would be quite upset. 1: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/spec/amp-c...
No obstruction of the contents, branding or attribution of the original AMP document.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What websites need to not only regularly preload+prerender other webpages but also webpages outside their trustzone? And when does the performance of half a millisecond matter?
Latency to remote servers isn’t half a millisecond. A click off from google would normally take a second or two to render and be much worse at the p95 page load time. With AMP, this is cut down to tens of milliseconds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AMP is my only option of getting de-bloated webpages It isn't, though. Plenty of sites out there are de-bloated, and things like Reader Mode in browsers makes the rest work just fine.
Is this really true - every time I switch to non AMP / non Adblock my eyes bleed. User numbers for AMP and Adblock say at least something about the “fact” that sites are debloated.
It's ironic to me that AMP is a problem we all brought upon ourselves, really. It's almost (jokingly) a Prisoner's dilemma [1]. Had no one ever opted into it, it probably would have just been swept under the rug by Google, and a win-win for us all. But since a competitor of yours ( probably ) opted into it to get ahead of you, you now have to opt into it also, to compete and get the same SEO "power juice" it gave the…
Counterpoint: WE don't live in an ideal world and AMP is my only option of getting de-bloated webpages. I would love if managers and directors would do this themselves and AMP wouldn't be needed, but that's just not the case. I have to choose between downloading some text and images to read an article or load 5MB JavaScript SinglePageApp with tracking, ads, auto playing video's... I know in an ideal world AMP would b…
How about de-bloating your webpages instead?
Seriously, people, come on — just put less cruft in your web pages. Don't load 500 trackers. Say no when the marketing guys come over and tell you to add 10 more. Tell your bosses that marketing is incompetent. Push back and tell people that adding cruft is bad.
Please don't bother telling me how it "can't be done". It can, but you might not want to.
I'm actually quite happy about the way this AMP thing is unrolling: the bloated crappy sites will walk into the jaws of AMP and get badly owned by Google eventually, being completely dependent on them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AMP is my only option of getting de-bloated webpages It isn't, though. Plenty of sites out there are de-bloated, and things like Reader Mode in browsers makes the rest work just fine.
Is this really true - every time I switch to non AMP / non Adblock my eyes bleed. User numbers for AMP and Adblock say at least something about the “fact” that sites are debloated.
Just came to say I hate amp. If I want to go to a site I want that site not a google cache of it. It’s not a better experience. It just means another click to get to where I was going. Stop the madness Google kill amp.
AMP isn't limited to Google cache. Websites and CDNs (like Bing and Cloudflare) can roll their own AMP and cache it themselves, while still getting the icon in search results.
Example: https://amp.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/6yj6iw/what_did_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's forcing me to go through AMP, that's what I'm saying. And in the case of the parent OG article this is all on, that is currently broken. Thus, forcing me to be stuck on AMP, with no way to bypass it. That's why it needs a setting to disable it entirely. I don't want to have to go through a website to get to the one I wanted. I don't need the AMP middleman. You are completely not understanding my point of having…
Can’t you still go to regular pages? I’ve never been forced to go to AMP pages. But I like them - people forget the full screen videos that popped up pre-AMP. Seriously - all this complaining you can’t load your bloatware pages is weird. AMP wouldn’t even be a thing if devs hadn’t trashed their own websites.