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

AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

wptavern.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 172 posts

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#31

Post by DocTomoe »

cerved wrote: post #24
throwaway2048 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP literally has a built in 1 second delay to render outside of Google, non AMP content, that is the "Nice comparative boost". It has nothing to do with "pre rendering" its built right into the CSS.

how is this done in CSS?

I think there is confusion about the term "rendering" here.

The term "rendering" is used

(a) to describe the actual translation of textual-instructive HTML/CSS/Javascript into a graphical representation within a browser window and

(b) to describe stuff being loaded into a page via Javascript, most prominently ads, and more oriented towards load time ("How long until the page has finished loading" = "rendering time").

With CSS, you can define pixel-perfect areas for stuff to be rendered into, which makes the browser not having to decide on the size of the area after it has loaded further material from third-party sources. Doing so reduces "screen flickering", which is generally annoying (and the major reason why I block ads with a vengeance). This can be described as "pre-rendering" when you understand rendering as (a).

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#32

Post by chrischapman »

ramesh31 wrote: post #27

>Announcements and discussions on hot topics impacting the greater web community at the event included Google’s Privacy Sandbox initiative, improvements to Core Web Vitals and performance tools, and new APIs for Progressive Web Apps (PWAs). Stop trying to make PWAs happen. It's not going to happen.

It's somewhat off topic but why do you say this? Is it the 'progressive' issue or the 'web app' issue. My view is that a browser is a really good way to deliver applications - in fact, I prefer them to any other form of application. I'm not too hung up on the whole 'progressive' thing these days but a NoJS application still has it's benefits.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#33

Post by grey-area »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #10
putlake wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. This is not even wrong. I'm sorry; I never post just to criticize someone's comment. But yours was the top comment on the page and was, in addition to being wrong, condescending to an author…

It decreases load times for sites pulling in 20+ third party scripts. The purpose of AMP is to cut away that hot garbage. Sadly it hasn't worked at shaming these poorly designed sites into correcting their ways.

That is not the purpose of AMP, that’s the superficially plausible line used to sell you on it.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#34

Post by saurik »

riffraff wrote: post #18
DevKoala wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the last antitrust suite against Google it was confirmed that Google developed AMP to combat header bidding in order to protect their price arbitrage cut in their ad exchange. Publishers are now weaponizing against Google.

Isn't the antitrust suite still ongoing? I thought we're still talking of accusations, not proven facts (tho I believe them true).

AFAIK those weren't claims, as the claims aren't that specific: they were revelations that came from discovery that will be used as evidence to attempt to defend the claims.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#35

Post by [deleted] »

ramesh31 wrote: post #27

>Announcements and discussions on hot topics impacting the greater web community at the event included Google’s Privacy Sandbox initiative, improvements to Core Web Vitals and performance tools, and new APIs for Progressive Web Apps (PWAs). Stop trying to make PWAs happen. It's not going to happen.

[deleted]

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#38

Post by kinlan »

As someone mentioned directly in this blog post I can tell you where I came from with the event at least. Trust. Making sure developers know what we're working and why we think it's important and when we can show everyone the data to back up our rationale. I think we still have a long way to go, but it's something I've always strived for my team (devrel) to do.

I felt that it was important to ask these questions on the AMA (there was a fair few in the sli.do in other areas around trust) that centered around all the different pieces of work we do but also knowing that we're not the AMP team we can only answer with our perspective - we try to do everything in the open and developers should rightly judge us on how well we do. I do encourage people to check out the blink process as a place to keep a check on what we are thinking about.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#39

Post by benrapscallion »

ashtonkem wrote: post #30

Honestly at this point, if you trust google you’re a fool. It’s demonstrated itself to be unreliable, capricious, and absolutely willing to break the law if it thinks it can get away with it. Do business with them if you absolutely must, but under no circumstance should you actually trust them.

Seconded. As such, I’ve switched to Safari, DuckDuckGo, and Fastmail. But how does one escape their ubiquitous presence all over the web (Google analytics, ads)??? They’re like a creepy neighbor who keeps following you around.

Re: AMP Has Irreparably Damaged Publishers’ Trust in Google-Led Initiatives

#40

Post by lrem »

ctack wrote: post #20
DevKoala wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chrome’s stronghold on the web and their ability to delay the death of the cookie allows advertisers to continue doing micro targeting and thus paying more per impression. Publishers would be shooting themselves in the foot if they steer users away from Chrome.

If they’re paying more per impression how is that shooting themselves in the foot?

I'm a Googler, not working on ads.

The idea is that the advertiser ultimately wants to buy a certain amount of conversions. With their ad budget being roughly constant, better targeting means that you need to show fewer ads of that advertiser to get to that point. So, you're decreasing the denominator, increasing cost per impression.

This is obviously oversimplified, because actual payment happens at the intermediate step of click. But the inherent feedback loops finally work out to the above.

Post reply on HN