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

Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web

socpub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 83 posts

Re: Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web

#41

Post by MaxBarraclough »

mrtksn wrote: post #39
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm yet to see a user that's not happy with AMP. But you're talking to one. > begging Google to make it flow like before My understanding is that AMP doesn't necessarily impact ad revenues ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accelerated_Mobil... ). If it did, it wouldn't see adoption, no?

I don't see your argument for not being happy with AMP as a user, so I can't tell.

You've not responded to my point.

I dislike AMP for essentially the same reasons listed in the article.

Additionally, I value parsimony, which isn't mentioned in the article. I disdain anything that further bloats the web stack. Unless there's a very good reason for a new web technology - and here, there isn't - then we shouldn't further complicate the standards or our browsers.

Re: Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web

#42

Post by Angostura »

mrtksn wrote: post #5

I think it's very important to address the reason why AMP is possible in the first place: Websites are so extremely slow these days. From users perspective, when I see the lightning icon on my search results I feel happy because it means that the page will show me it's contents as soon as I click it. It means that the website is not going to show me white page for 15 seconds then start jumping around, changing shape…

> Websites are so extremely slow these days.

I must have extremely low standards, but I simply don't find this to be the case. A few, yes. The vast majority work fine.

Re: Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web

#43

Post by mrtksn »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #41
mrtksn wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see your argument for not being happy with AMP as a user, so I can't tell.

You've not responded to my point. I dislike AMP for essentially the same reasons listed in the article. Additionally, I value parsimony, which isn't mentioned in the article. I disdain anything that further bloats the web stack. Unless there's a very good reason for a new web technology - and here, there isn't - then we shouldn't further complicate the standards or our browsers.

Your dislike is political. You dislike AMP the same way a Vegan doesn't like kebab, the problem is not that the kebab isn't delicious but that animals are harmed in making it.

As for your ad revenue argument, not all the benefit from users is the direct ad revenue.

Re: Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web

#44

Post by MaxBarraclough »

mrtksn wrote: post #43
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've not responded to my point. I dislike AMP for essentially the same reasons listed in the article. Additionally, I value parsimony, which isn't mentioned in the article. I disdain anything that further bloats the web stack. Unless there's a very good reason for a new web technology - and here, there isn't - then we shouldn't further complicate the standards or our browsers.

Your dislike is political. You dislike AMP the same way a Vegan doesn't like kebab, the problem is not that the kebab isn't delicious but that animals are harmed in making it. As for your ad revenue argument, not all the benefit from users is the direct ad revenue.

> Your dislike is political.

Bloat is a technical concern, but my other concerns are largely political, yes.

You seem to want to imply that this invalidates my opinion. Not so.

> not all the benefit from users is the direct ad revenue

Sure - such as readership - but which of them are impacted by AMP?

Re: Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web

#45

Post by vertex-four »

tyler_larson wrote: post #13
jayflux wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is that they are separate services which have always been that way and people can choose not to use them from the beginning. Amp is different in that it sits in front of a lot of websites which used to work directly, it’s apples and oranges. iTunes didn’t take over any existing service or stop you from doing something you could before on the web

So then it's akamai or limelight, then. Still not a threat. Open standard, opt-in free cdn, independent compatible alternatives; this does not sound like a hostile takeover of your freedom.

The thing is... if you don’t use Google’s libraries and opt in to Google’s broken UI on mobile (you no longer actually go to the website, you’re kept on a weird container that contains the website), you get a drop in Google’s search results. There are no independent compatible alternatives which do not get that drop.

Re: Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web

#46

Post by mrtksn »

MaxBarraclough wrote: post #44
mrtksn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your dislike is political. You dislike AMP the same way a Vegan doesn't like kebab, the problem is not that the kebab isn't delicious but that animals are harmed in making it. As for your ad revenue argument, not all the benefit from users is the direct ad revenue.

> Your dislike is political. Bloat is a technical concern, but my other concerns are largely political, yes. You seem to want to imply that this invalidates my opinion. Not so. > not all the benefit from users is the direct ad revenue Sure - such as readership - but which of them are impacted by AMP?

it invalidates your opinion but you’re free to hold the opinion that it doesn’t

Re: Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web

#47

Post by mercer »

mrtksn wrote: post #26
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How this solves anything for the user? Is it not obvious? It would motivate major websites to clean up their act and sort out the bloat problem, with no need for yet another web technology.

That's a hypothesis that assumes that the major websites will get motivated until the users get frustrated by the low quality of search results. With AMP it's cheap and quick to implement, how long will it take for the websites to re-implement their codebase and all the tooling to match the performance criteria? Anyway, you're missing the point that I'm trying to make here: It's about the user's experience, it's not…

It's more than a little cynical to assume that most of us only care because we want to make money or grow our business.

The way I see it, as people who have more knowledge about this domain than the average user, it's actively our responsibility to act in the best interest of the user (our parents, friends, etc.), even if said user might not appreciate or understand the effort.

In the same way that I appreciate, say, doctors actively working against stupid/pointless stuff (homeopathy, avoid vaccination), I appreciate IT people trying to think beyond the immediate convenience of AMP.

Re: Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web

#48

Post by MaxBarraclough »

mrtksn wrote: post #46
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your dislike is political. Bloat is a technical concern, but my other concerns are largely political, yes. You seem to want to imply that this invalidates my opinion. Not so. > not all the benefit from users is the direct ad revenue Sure - such as readership - but which of them are impacted by AMP?

it invalidates your opinion but you’re free to hold the opinion that it doesn’t

So all opinions based on a political precept (such as valuing the open web) are inherently invalid?

Pure silliness.

Re: Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web

#49

Post by dmitriid »

tanilama wrote: post #7

The title and article feels like hyperbole: As user, I love AMP. It is much faster and lighter. God knows what javascript is running behind those websites that drives my CPU usage to 100%.

As a user, I hate AMP: it breaks links, it breaks browser behaviour on mobile

Re: Google AMP Is a Threat to the Open Web

#50

Post by alsetmusic »

mrtksn wrote: post #36
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, what are you trying to say? Why are you telling me "It's not your god given right to have users and make money"? Why do you think this has any connection to our conversation?

Why do you think that web businesses are complaining about AMP but not the users? I'm yet to see a user that's not happy with AMP. The web community acts as if the users are a commodity like oil and Google just made a change in its flow and now begging Google to make it flow like before to accommodate their business setup and promising that from now on they will be nicer to the commodity and store it in golden barrel…

> I'm yet to see a user that's not happy with AMP.

I am a user; I do not develop for the the web or operate a business that has a web presence. I hate AMP. It gets in the way of my search workflow on mobile; it fucks up links that I want to save or share; I suspect that Google intends to further reduce my ability to avoid it over time.

Post reply on HN