Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMP for email is bad

tutanota.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 161 posts

Re: AMP for email is bad

#31

Post by SquareWheel »

BoorishBears wrote: post #24
SquareWheel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP can be preloaded because it's designed to be preloaded. Regular HTML pages have side effects that can't be accounted for. lern_too_spel is right. That is literally what AMP was built for. Let's watch as HN downvotes the correction while upvoting the misinformation in the top-comment. edit: Downvote and flag. Very disappointing.

This correction does little to refute the original point so...

superkuh said:

>Starting with google: AMP does not actually make loading any faster. Google just uses it's search monopoly to make it seem so.

This is a complete misunderstanding of how AMP works. Google isn't abusing a monopoly to make AMP-pages appear artificially faster; they actually are faster. That's because they're safe to preload by design, as lern_too_spel explained already.

The monopoly comment makes even less sense when you consider that other search engines do the same, and even host their own AMP caches.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#32

Post by gcb0 »

lol. anyone have to read past the headline to know it's bad?!?!

everyone forgot the only purpose of amp? to give in to google so that you can get not-banished from their search results.

why would anyone apply a pernicious SEO technique to email?

what's next? an article on why rat poison on bread is a bad idea?

Re: AMP for email is bad

#33

Post by SquareWheel »

detaro wrote: post #27
x3haloed wrote: post #22

I can't belive the neckbeard level in here. "I do all my web browsing with curl and vim. Nobody needs AMP!" Listen -- AMP is merely a set of guidelines and a framework to help developers make media-rich web content load fast. You can obviously achieve the same results without AMP, just like you can write a SPA without a framework. Duh. AMP is not "bad" or "good". Get over yourselves and your moral peacocking and get…

> Listen -- AMP is merely a set of guidelines and a framework to help developers make media-rich web content load fast. You can obviously achieve the same results without AMP, just like you can write a SPA without a framework. Duh. Basically all criticism of AMP is about the fact that this is not true. If Google said "we prioritize fast pages, here's some guidelines and code on how to do that", that'd be fine. But th…

>don't want to show 8 seconds of empty page to users without JS

That's incorrect. AMP pages support noscript.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#34

Post by ricardobeat »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #17
fock wrote: post #2

Maybe one should first ask: Is AMP currently good for anyone but GOOG?

Really? Seems obviously good for everyone on an expensive mobile connection. Just like old-Opera's low bandwidth mode that proxies all requests through their servers. Never heard much bitching about that, btw. Just praise. It's kinda like an internet service that doesn't meter your WhatsApp data (very common here in Mexico): it's obviously useful to people, but it comes at an expensive price in the aggregate. Nobody…

You must be confused. AMP doesn’t necessarily save any bandwidth, and it’s not hard to find sites where the amp version is actually heavier.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#35

Post by andy_ppp »

SquareWheel wrote: post #31
BoorishBears wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This correction does little to refute the original point so...

superkuh said: > Starting with google: AMP does not actually make loading any faster. Google just uses it's search monopoly to make it seem so. This is a complete misunderstanding of how AMP works. Google isn't abusing a monopoly to make AMP-pages appear artificially faster; they actually are faster. That's because they're safe to preload by design, as lern_too_spel explained already. The monopoly comment makes even…

Most people here disagree with you, hence why you’ll be down voted. Would AMP be used if it wasn’t for the news carousel - nope - so Google is definitely using their position to embrace and extend open standards.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#36

Post by radarsat1 »

I really wish the email standard was markdown instead of HTML.

I only ever switch from text-only when I need to embed an image, and otherwise occasionally italics or whatever is useful. This could be taken care of with a basic markdown-like language, and avoid getting full HTML advertisements, etc. I really, really don't need your newsletter to be properly formatted in my mailbox, just send a link, I'll open it in the browser if I want to.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#37

Post by tpetry »

AMP for email is targeting a completely different topic than the issues listed here and in the article. And i am shocked everybody is simply not seeing them with their amp4web hate.

Amp for email is completely different than amp for web and is a very good solution: 1. Coding emails is really really hard. Every client is rendering emails differently, and Outlook is a beast with every version rendering differently. Amp for email is standardizing a subset of email and css every client should support so email building will be easier. 2. Email is completely different than the web. You cant do more than basic html like displaying text and pictures. Embedding videos? Slideshows for products? Interactivity like forms? Display realtime information? EVERYTHING IS NOT POSSIBLE! But it will be with amp4email. You will get features in emails compared to the web so they will get usefully again.

And i am afraid nobody is seeing this and only hating amp4web‘s hiding if the real urls etc.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#38

Post by ori_b »

tpetry wrote: post #37

AMP for email is targeting a completely different topic than the issues listed here and in the article. And i am shocked everybody is simply not seeing them with their amp4web hate. Amp for email is completely different than amp for web and is a very good solution: 1. Coding emails is really really hard. Every client is rendering emails differently, and Outlook is a beast with every version rendering differently. Amp…

> You cant do more than basic html like displaying text and pictures. Embedding videos? Slideshows for products? Interactivity like forms? Display realtime information? EVERYTHING IS NOT POSSIBLE! But it will be with amp4email.

Alright, you've convinced me: AMP for email needs to be killed.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#39

Post by ocdtrekkie »

tpetry wrote: post #37

AMP for email is targeting a completely different topic than the issues listed here and in the article. And i am shocked everybody is simply not seeing them with their amp4web hate. Amp for email is completely different than amp for web and is a very good solution: 1. Coding emails is really really hard. Every client is rendering emails differently, and Outlook is a beast with every version rendering differently. Amp…

amp4email is far worse and more dangerous than amp4web, and that's why privacy respecting email services are so opposed to it. Tutanota here, and FastMail who posted about it when it was first announced.

AMP isn't a subset of HTML, it's it's own proprietary fork of HTML. It's not saying an img tag is okay, it's tell you to use an amp-img tag.

Post reply on HN