Live data from Hacker News

On AMP for Email

rodriguezcommaj.com

31–34 of 34 posts

Re: On AMP for Email

#31

I don't know why people keep getting this wrong, but AMP does not introduce proprietary browser extensions or syntax. It's a custom element framework, not much different than say, React and JSX, or Vue, Ember, or tools such as LESS/SASS. In fact, its even more 'webby' than those because at least some browsers don't need polyfills for Web Components, and the declarative nature is more transparent than a virtual dom ap…

> AMP does not introduce proprietary browser extensions or syntax. It's a custom element framework, That's not exactly true. AMP is a proprietary Google product: All valid AMP pages must source remote resources from Google, and all 17 members of AMP's core team are employed by Google. Specifically, the fact that valid AMP pages must load the framework from https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js creates a hard runtime depen…

> r authenticate the library with a durable subresource integrity (SRI) hash while still remaining valid

According to the discussion, there's concern this creates large scale hard to fix security issues. The alternative is to build something like AMP into browsers themselves, and then the normal Chrome/Safari/Edge/Firefox release process could fix issues.

But in lieu of that, what's your suggestion? Wait years for standards committees to hash out something at the W3C so that browser vendors implement it, all the while users suffer and Facebook Instant Articles or Apple News soak up more and more web traffic into native, or, ship something that creates an unpatchable security flaw across the web without millions of pages being updated?

If not AMP, then what? XHTML Mobile? We've been down that route and it didn't work. Bring back RSS and force mobile publishing to just be RSS summaries for fast loading?

Lost in all of this geek fighting is the fact that there's a billion users out there who don't care about the Web vs Native, they only care that shit's slow as hell and their data plan is expensive, and despite all of this, there was apparently no forcing function enticing publishers to make their pages load faster, if anything, right before AMP, it seems each and every "redesign" of top level mobile sites got SLOWER and loaded even more JS.

I don't really care about AMP, I care about the Web and I hate closed App Stores soaking up content and making it DRM'ed. In my view, we were on a path to the web collapsing under it's own weight, and AMP is a much needed band aid.

If someone can produce a competing framework that does the same thing, can be easily and wildly adopted, and solves all of the problems people are complaining about, I'd wholeheartedly support it in lieu of AMP.

But what I don't want to see is more and more of my content forcing me to download stuff from the App Store, or run inside Facebook only. That's a far far worse situation than what we're in now.

Re: On AMP for Email

#32
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Enough people are coming out saying it's a terrible idea... In the tech sphere, posting on blogs linked to by sites like HN. The fact is that 99% of gmails users will never see the push back and have no clue what AMP is. Unless the actual experience is just terrible, most users will be probably enjoy the added functionality without thinking about the concerns we have.

Luckily, sometimes views of fellow developers do in fact move the needle. Though I'm not holding my breath sadly.

Sure, they do, sometimes. We'll see I guess.

Re: On AMP for Email

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mobile networks and smart phones have incredible performance. AMP is about making up for the race-to-the-bottom behaviour of sites that can’t resist using 6mb and a boatful of JS just to render an article(+analytics+ads)

Do you really believe that? They can't even hold a TCP connection open without running out of battery or terrible latency. And $diety forbid trying to host or use ports.

I have a device that fits in my trouser pocket that allows me to stream and watch HD video for multiple hours over a cell network while being powered by a battery roughly the volume of a matchbox.

Yes, I think that's incredible. Does it have TCP characteristics similar to an Ethernet-equipped desktop? No, probably not -- but that's got nothing to do with the characteristics that led to the creation of AMP.

Mobile networks and phones are powerful enough for video, so they're powerful enough to download and render a web page. If they're slow at web pages, it's very likely the fault of the page creator, not the network or device.

AMP is an attempt to force the hands of the page creators out there, since they apparently can't self-regulate.

Re: On AMP for Email

#34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe that? They can't even hold a TCP connection open without running out of battery or terrible latency. And $diety forbid trying to host or use ports.

I have a device that fits in my trouser pocket that allows me to stream and watch HD video for multiple hours over a cell network while being powered by a battery roughly the volume of a matchbox. Yes, I think that's incredible. Does it have TCP characteristics similar to an Ethernet-equipped desktop? No, probably not -- but that's got nothing to do with the characteristics that led to the creation of AMP. Mobile net…

It has everything to do with it. Mobile phones have special needs due to their lack of energy and lack of a real network connection. Sure, they can be powerful... for a dozen minutes before thermal throttling and draining the battery. Sure they can stream video like a good consumer but you can't do anything productive on them. You can't even really run a decent NoScript interactively or related due to the lack of a decent UI. So, AMP.

They're really quite shitty computers but luckily there are so many users that tech companies are figuratively bending over backward to make up for their performance problems.

Post reply on HN