It took 8 seconds, 1.7 Mb of data and 233 requests to load this article. May be a web like this deserves to be killed.
Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
381–390 of 489 posts
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#382As a web developer I have AMP but as a user I love it! Websites have been so bloated that something like this was badly needed. People loading just 100-200 kbs of fonts to serve 10kb of original content.
Okay, I know of a website that loads almost 2MB of javascript to show you 140 bytes of actual content.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think they're actually are a lot of Apple fan is claiming that the one benevolent company should control everything as you posited earlier your post. Not of course directly, as that would sound obviously fanatical, but the walled garden is almost universally cited as the "best thing" about iOS compared to more open platforms like Android. This recent article in MacWorld invokes it at least five times, sayin…
> But from 3rd party developer's perspective, I can assure the more open platform is better. I'm not sure that follows. But anyway, if being more open is a good thing then Google purposefully trying to shove everyone into their various products and ecosystems seems precisely the opposite of "open" to me. I was never really a big fan of chrome but when you Google released it and the web started getting a lot better th…
Certainly Google is not any less brutal corporation to Apple once afforded a monopoly, as the AMP case shows.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well now you know how most of those web pages felt on Android before - web devs tested on mobile Safari and left pages broken and utterly stuttery on Android web browser.
That's because Chrome on Android sucked.
And now Safari sucks according to Gruber complaints. Feels great doesn't it? :)
If anyone gave a shit about Chrome for Android before, AMP might not be necessary.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#385Ive forced myself to use Bing since google introduced AMP. Do I like it better than Google? No, I don't. But! I like not having google become my single source of content more than I dislike the slight drop in quality as a result of using Bing. I like the sites I go to, to have control over their content and being able to easily link to them. I think it's reprehensible for google to push this so relentlessly and beyon…
Checkout Duck Duck Go, still not Google-level results, but it's still pretty good, and not Bing.
For past few years, I go to try DuckDuckGo every once in a while (especially when someone suggests that again on HN), but it disappoints me every time with the quality of search results.
Also, if it is using Bing on inside, I'm not then sure why the results are still different than that(even at the places where there's no scope for personalization). For example type this line exactly in both bing and ddg:
difference between std list and std set
The first result DDG shows is of a difference between set and a vector - not only that, it also highlights that result in a Google Card inspired fashion (which is worse because Google does that only when they have a certain amount of confidence in the answer), while the first result Bing shows is an actual difference between list and a set. So either Bing is cheating DDG, or DDG is doing something stupid on top of its results. (Also, if you cover the above string in quotes, Bing still shows 'some' search results, while DDG doesn't).
May be after using the '!' ninja techniques it'll be same as Google, but then I have also come to love the fact that I can type in 'my next flight' or 'Show me emails from ....' or 'remind me to ... ' and other personalized things on Google so may be my priorities are different here.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to me the right approach would be for sites to embrace the HTML5 semantic tags ( , and so forth), and browsers to offer a way to view just that semantically-marked-up content - without scripts, with restricted CSS, and maybe with some kind of filtering out of third-party content. Something like Firefox's "reader view", but including more bits of the page. So the browser would still be downloading the exact same…
An idea I've been floating for a while is to have two HTML profiles in the future. Call it HTML6 document and HTML6 app. HTML6 document is a restricted subset, similar to what you suggest. I would still allow complete design flexibility, and I might even allow a subset of JS, but only for presentation purposes. Definitely not turing complete, and no ajax etc.. Probably I wouldn't allow cross-origin resources with cre…
This sounds good as a dream, but in reality it would actually achieve anything because everyone, including the publishers, would just use 'HTML6 app'.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems to me the right approach would be for sites to embrace the HTML5 semantic tags ( , and so forth), and browsers to offer a way to view just that semantically-marked-up content - without scripts, with restricted CSS, and maybe with some kind of filtering out of third-party content. Something like Firefox's "reader view", but including more bits of the page. So the browser would still be downloading the exact same…
An idea I've been floating for a while is to have two HTML profiles in the future. Call it HTML6 document and HTML6 app. HTML6 document is a restricted subset, similar to what you suggest. I would still allow complete design flexibility, and I might even allow a subset of JS, but only for presentation purposes. Definitely not turing complete, and no ajax etc.. Probably I wouldn't allow cross-origin resources with cre…
You can make light web pages with current technologies but nobody wants a page without advertisement, popups, analytics and notifications.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
Checkout Duck Duck Go, still not Google-level results, but it's still pretty good, and not Bing.
Duckduckgo is a lovely idea with abhorrent search results. Like, unusably bad results, at least to the extent that I'm a reasonably tech savvy user. I'm often searching for papers as a grad student, or typing things "close enough" and hoping Google figures it out for me etc. Duckduckgo cannot keep up. I love Bangs, I love the idea, but the search is nigh-useless. That said, I use StartPage, who have a contract I beli…
DDG "worse" search results are also a product of you not being profiled. Or to put it in another way, Google better search results are also a product of all your habits being gathered and analyzed.
Sadly we can't have a search engine that knows nothing about us and guesses at the same time what we are looking for. DDG can give better results, but this require being more specific when searching.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't realize AMP content was hosted by Google.
The original content is still on the website, Google hosts a cache server, rehosting the website's content around the world closer to the users for faster access, for free. In theory, it's a win-win-win situation. Publisher gets free hosting (with analytics and ad money still coming to them obviously), users get a faster experience and Google is happier if the users browser more content. In reality, AMP is obviously…
I doubt that CDN is really that important. Maybe if your site serves content overseas then there is a difference but what about a website in a relatively small country that is visited mostly by locals? The CDN doesn't make big difference here.
If your server supports HTTP/2 and has a connection with a good bandwith then static resources can be loaded really fast without any CDN because all the resources can be loaded in parallel without waiting in a queue.
The real motivation for publishers to implement AMP is that they hope to get better position in search results.
Re: Kill Google AMP before it kills the web
#390I actually really like AMP but not for articles but for products in webshops. The media on the internet is such a mess nowadays anyway that having AMP pages makes no difference whatsoever for the content, sharing and talking. How is google optimized content any different than having to print magazines so that they fit through your mailbox? It is just a alternative method of delivery. The truth is that for the everyday user the only interesting part is the content. Not the ads, not the comments, especially not the page layout and hopefully not the links to other "You never believe what X things about Y" articles across 10 X different page loads. AMP for web articles may die as publishers try to remain more independent or relevant in other forums (snapchat, instagram stories, facebook live etc.) but the idea of fast and simple mobile pages should remain.
For webshops where product discovery is really important and having a fast google search result could (I dont have data to back this up) really drive users to use your webshop instead of the competitors. AMP style pages force developers to focus on what is actually important on the page.