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

AMP for email is a terrible idea

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#331

Post by wruza »

tejasmanohar wrote: post #27

AMP is, to begin with, Google exerting its market power to extend its control over others’ content. Facebook is doing it, so Google has to. As a consumer, I actually love AMP. Everytime I click a news link on mobile and am taken to AMP, I'm relieved to be free from the extremely distracting original websites. Google has done a lot of exciting work on open standards like JSON-LD [0] and Microdata [1] to bring a better…

I don’t like how usual ios controls stop to work with amp, e.g. scroll to top by tapping on time; back button works[-ed] wrongly. Also there is annoying amp bar at the top that pops up constantly when I scroll. They can’t distinguish between swipe-and-stop and swipe-and-letitscroll in browser, so it doesn’t work as safari header bar.

Better they completely faked dns/cert in some wat and presented me copied content from their amp cache. I don’t check sources anyway.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#332

Post by daveheq »

mankash666 wrote: post #207

I'll get down voted for saying this, but the HN crowd's hypocrisy is baffling. 1. Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade. This is an opportunity for them to extract value from the said channel. If you're allergic to Google offering free services that use your data for advertising, go pay for email. Google isn't a charity and you aren't entitled to a Gmail of your choosing. 2. Apple is a prime…

They already make a profit without AMP in Gmail.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#333

Post by daveheq »

adamsvystun wrote: post #220
mankash666 wrote: post #207

I'll get down voted for saying this, but the HN crowd's hypocrisy is baffling. 1. Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade. This is an opportunity for them to extract value from the said channel. If you're allergic to Google offering free services that use your data for advertising, go pay for email. Google isn't a charity and you aren't entitled to a Gmail of your choosing. 2. Apple is a prime…

> 1. Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade. I disagree. Gmail brought Google millions of customers. It's all about the ecosystem that they are building, which helps them retain customers. If you use Gmail, than there is higher chance that you will use Google Drive than competition. Another example of this is Google Keep. There is no reason for them to have free notes app, other than making y…

No, the reason is someone at Google had the idea to make a notes app, then they use the data from that app to monetize.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#334

Post by wruza »

mankash666 wrote: post #207

I'll get down voted for saying this, but the HN crowd's hypocrisy is baffling. 1. Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade. This is an opportunity for them to extract value from the said channel. If you're allergic to Google offering free services that use your data for advertising, go pay for email. Google isn't a charity and you aren't entitled to a Gmail of your choosing. 2. Apple is a prime…

c) without amp sites work with no misbehaving header bar that they cannot fix. Every time I scroll down it pops up. If you have an iphone, you know how safari header behaves and it is convenient/usual. This damned amp plate only allows you to scroll down and close. Note: I’m not talking about “tap clock to scrool to top” here. If you don’t understand these UX details, well, don’t blame then.

I’m pretty okay with google substituting ssl/dns/content even for their cash flow, I don’t care until they turn my browser into common-standards web crap. It turns safari into chrome, which I tested on an expensive sony sevice and couldn’t stand any more than two days.

Edit: I know that my “don’t care” is not popular among hn users, but it resembles regular non-tech folks thinking — amp is that thing on some sites that annoys you when you scroll and share links. 98% of us really don’t care and notice inconvenience only.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#335

Post by RobertRoberts »

beagle3 wrote: post #315
RobertRoberts wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their search products are a monopoly, their email is not. I provide paid email services for my clients, they can use Gmail if they want, or not. But for SEO, it's Google all the way down...

I’m not sure gmail meets the legal definition of a monopoly, but 3 months ago, gmail started to randomly mark some of my emails “spam”, and it has caused me non trivial financial damage, as it turns out about 90% of the people I correspond with are using google’s mail servers, whether @gmail.com or through g-suite. Feels as monopolish as any other monopoly i’ve seen in technology.

People can still run their own email server if they want, and it will work just fine, and receive and deliver mail to other mail servers.

A monopoly situation would have some kind of limits enforced, correct?

I have dealt with spam issues with Gmail and solved them all. I send HTML formatted email to many Gmail accounts. I suspect you have not setup SPF, DKIM or are blacklisted on spam lists. Or if you've done all this, possibly the formats for your emails is suspect. Either way, it's solvable. At the very least, your clients could white list your domain.

Edit: I am not saying it's pleasant, but it's hardly monopolistic behavior...

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#337

Post by RobertRoberts »

kuschku wrote: post #320
r3bl wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing stopping end users from using non-Google search engine. Bing, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo... they're all viable products that you can use to accomplish 90ish% of what Google could find, and maybe even more now that Google strips historical data (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16153840 , from a month ago). Since you're mentioning SEO, I just checked and 15.8% of searches for my website came from non-Go…

Something can be a monopoly in market, but not in another. Google isn't a monopoly for users, it's a monopoly for developers. You can't get users without being on Google. Only if I can replace one company with another, at roughly equal results, can the market be considered competitive. I can't delist my site on Google and replace those users with Bing users. If each search engine had only 5% or 10% of the market, tho…

I would tend to agree, but not their email. That's easily replaced.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#338

Post by dm319 »

cdubzzz wrote: post #264
madeofpalk wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that's missing here is the email _client_ story. I really like Google's Inbox and there's no amount of money I can pay anyone else for a similar experience.

Honest question: do you think you really like it or are you really used to it? When Google made the move to Inbox, I switched because I wanted to be using their newest interface. Over time I came to absolutely hate it and that drove me away from Gmail. My wife still uses it so I occasionally find myself in the Inbox app on our tablet. Just a few days ago, actually, I read something in her inbox and for the life of me…

I find it surprising that my search seems more comprehensive and faster in mutt than by the king-of-search's very own.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#339

Post by b0rsuk »

Qwertious wrote: post #212
jacquesm wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only on HN...

I also point this out whenever someone mentions the frog analogy on reddit. So, also on reddit.

In Poland, right-wingers / conservatives use "lemmings" as a derogatory term for political opponents and basically anyone who doesn't agree with them. It isn't because they're fans of the game from 90's. There was a Disney animal "documentary" which had a scene with lemmings jumping off a cliff. The thing is, lemmings don't do that (don't suicide). In the movie, they were pushed for dramatic effect.

Moral of the story: conservatives in Poland live in their own delusions.

Redneck Mythbusters: put the term in search engine. Youtube works well most of the time. If you can't find multiple videos or photos showing it happening, it's probably not real. If all you can find is reports like "a bloke told me", it's probably not real.

If you're not at work, try it with "fluffer". Some stories are too good to be true.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#340

Post by feniv »

jpp123 wrote: post #329
feniv wrote: post #144

Besides the ideological issues, is the HTML tag for AMP emails seriously going to be (html lightning-emoji 4email)? I wish they implemented this as a separate MIME type so emails could specify multi-part messages with text/plain, text/html and a text/amp (just for gmail).

it is a separate mime type

You're right - it looks like it's available as the text-x-amphtml MIME part. I missed that on the initial read-through.
Post reply on HN