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

The Problem with AMP

80x24.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 353 posts

Re: The Problem with AMP

#301

Post by Andrex »

pdkl95 wrote: post #159
jshen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen ordinary users get frustrated with it, but they don't understand why. They don't know what AMP is, and they don't realize they are on an AMP page. For example, the URL bar says they are on Google but they are reading a Slate article. The web is already confusing enough, and AMP makes it worse. Many ordinary users think they are reading content from Google, like that famous CNN interview where a lady said, "…

> For example, the URL bar says they are on Google but they are reading a Slate article. The web is already confusing enough, and AMP makes it worse. Well, that explains why they wanted Chrome to hide URLs[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7693995

The Chrome experiment in question ended before AMP was even a thought, and AMP and Chrome are separate teams inside Google. I doubt they're even mildly related.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#302

Post by nailer »

lambada wrote: post #222
coldtea wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I use AMP on CertSimple but appreciate that AMP favors 'speed achieved using specific techniques' rather than speed per se. Why on god's name anybody would appreciate that?

I believe the poster means appreciate as in 'I recognise that' or 'I understand that' rather than 'I approve of'.

Yes.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#303

Post by nebabyte »

colordrops wrote: post #282
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…

> required to act in their shareholders best interests This is an extremely vague requirement. Potentially killing their brand name among developers and potentially initiating a slow long decline into irrelevancy certainly counts as not acting in their shareholders' best interests. When google first started, their "don't be evil" mantra was one of the main reasons they succeeded, so not doing unethical shit is in the…

> Potentially killing their brand name among developers and potentially initiating a slow long decline into irrelevancy certainly counts as not acting in their shareholders' best interests. When google first started, their "don't be evil" mantra was one of the main reasons they succeeded

He's right in that they're a company, but not that the solution to this problem is to "kill Google."

Much easier and truer to the problem is to "kill" this expectation people have that the magic of good-natured leadership will create companies that dutifully remain bound to arbitrary constraints as "don't be evil" or "not doing unethical shit". It's just blissful daydreaming.

Much better would be to collectively gravitate around community alternatives. You have most of the tools in front of you (open-source, remember?), but you decide that Google's 'already won' and think of yourself as reliant upon them (thus complaining when they don't do things your way).

Re: The Problem with AMP

#304

Post by maverick_iceman »

mort96 wrote: post #279
sfifs wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti trust prosecutions work only if harm to consumer is proven - harm to other companies doesn't really work for successfully anti trust prosecutions. There's a reason no US attorneys bring anti trust lawsuits against Google and that's because Google would very likely be able to show their choices benefitted consumers (eg. say saved 10 mins and 50MB data a day across 200 million consumers without charge)

I'm an individual, not a company. I make web pages. Lots of other individuals also make web pages. It's not like only companies make websites and consumers only use websites.

I'm pretty sure the number of individual web devs is vastly lower than the number of consumers.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#305

Post by jshen »

wheelerwj wrote: post #176
jshen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen ordinary users get frustrated with it, but they don't understand why. They don't know what AMP is, and they don't realize they are on an AMP page. For example, the URL bar says they are on Google but they are reading a Slate article. The web is already confusing enough, and AMP makes it worse. Many ordinary users think they are reading content from Google, like that famous CNN interview where a lady said, "…

Because that's where the site you are viewing is located... Do you really want to go down the rabit hole of a browser displaying a different url than what you are viewing?

Not really, the page is located on slate.com, that's the canonical location, and google is adding a secondary location that is confusing and adds very little benefit. AMP provides a lot of benefits that do not depend on google hosting the page in addition to the canonical location.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#306

Post by ksk »

freehunter wrote: post #297
ksk wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Its morally reprehensible but still the correct decision in today's business climate. Using your logic if slavery were to become legal again, businesses should rush to use the free labor because "fiduciary duty". This is why they teach business ethics.

Why do you think companies rush to use H1B visas and offshore to countries that use (what amounts to) slave labor? Yes, companies do this today. Business ethics counts for nothing if it's not mandated. Compare Walmart's revenue to Whole Foods and you'll see why.

I don't quite understand how you're putting a moral judgement on outsourcing which is simply the purchase of a service. Certainly if a specific company is using slave or even child labor that is terrible and they should be boycotted. There have been several cases of business suffering real consequences. I am sure that they have not escaped your attention.

Anyway, its wrong to say business ethics account for nothing. Companies can and do self-regulate. e.g. http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-023.pdf

Re: The Problem with AMP

#307

Post by jshen »

tehlike wrote: post #104
jshen wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen ordinary users get frustrated with it, but they don't understand why. They don't know what AMP is, and they don't realize they are on an AMP page. For example, the URL bar says they are on Google but they are reading a Slate article. The web is already confusing enough, and AMP makes it worse. Many ordinary users think they are reading content from Google, like that famous CNN interview where a lady said, "…

i am curious about the numbers, though i do not know internally or externally if there are numbers showing this. As a power android user, i kind of like the rss-reader-esque look and feel of the amp links. It also opens blazing fast. With these in mind, minor inconveniences (like the address bar) are probably something i wouldn't mind.

Here's the deal, nearly all of the benefits of AMP are unrelated to the masking of the URL, they are in the HTML validation aspects of AMP. Masking the URL and keeping users on Google when they think they are on Slate is a rather naked land-grab with a lot of downside for users and very little benefit to users.

Why doesn't Google drop the URL masking while keeping all the real benefits of AMP? The answer, profits over people. I say this as a long time fan of Google, but this AMP stuff is where the "don't be evil" tagline turned into a joke for me.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#308

Post by towo »

pawadu wrote: post #258
nrjdhsbsid wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The crazy thing is that AMP is open source and this is still happening. I've been tracking their GitHub and what is happening is that while yes, the source is open, they won't let you add anything they don't like. Oh, and if you try to fork AMP you fail the official validators and suddenly your site isn't AMP anymore. What is happening in this case is that open source is doing nothing to stop AMP from being proprieta…

> I've been tracking their GitHub and what is happening is that while yes, the source is open, they won't let you add anything they don't like. Well, thats basically how Android works. And with the upcoming policy changes (in CDD and GCM) things will get even worse.

It's pretty much how open source works everywhere - you have to convince the maintainer to adopt your code. If they don't, you've got the options of either being sad or forking it and trying to get people to use your subjectively better version.

It's open source, not anarchist source.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#309

Post by colordrops »

AstralStorm wrote: post #298
colordrops wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> required to act in their shareholders best interests This is an extremely vague requirement. Potentially killing their brand name among developers and potentially initiating a slow long decline into irrelevancy certainly counts as not acting in their shareholders' best interests. When google first started, their "don't be evil" mantra was one of the main reasons they succeeded, so not doing unethical shit is in the…

No, making more money is, and shareholders tend to think in short term gains.

Are only short term gains in shareholders' best interests? Is there a legal definition? I'm asking genuinely.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#310

Post by pdkl95 »

Andrex wrote: post #301
pdkl95 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, the URL bar says they are on Google but they are reading a Slate article. The web is already confusing enough, and AMP makes it worse. Well, that explains why they wanted Chrome to hide URLs[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7693995

The Chrome experiment in question ended before AMP was even a thought, and AMP and Chrome are separate teams inside Google. I doubt they're even mildly related.

> separate teams

Different teams inside a business can have coordinated long-term goals.

Regardless, their master plan[1] clearly shows "Redesign HTTP", "Browser", and "Next generation web (Fish Pod)" as precursors that lead to "Private Internet", "Walled Garden", "need more cache", and "NEWSBANK".

[1] http://undergoogle.com/tools/GoogleMasterPlan.html

Post reply on HN