Email providers that only allow access to your emails using their special clients (instead of, e.g. imap) are also bad for email.
AMP for email is bad
41–50 of 161 posts
Re: AMP for email is bad
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
This correction does little to refute the original point so...
superkuh said: > Starting with google: AMP does not actually make loading any faster. Google just uses it's search monopoly to make it seem so. This is a complete misunderstanding of how AMP works. Google isn't abusing a monopoly to make AMP-pages appear artificially faster; they actually are faster. That's because they're safe to preload by design, as lern_too_spel explained already. The monopoly comment makes even…
You’re fixating a point that is not the crux of the argument.
Not to mention, it’s hard to imagine AMP existing if it wasn’t for Google's search monopoly.
It wasn’t until late last year that AMP was really governed by true committee, well after it had been established in Googles image.
But that’s also all tangential to the original comment.
Re: AMP for email is bad
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
superkuh said: > Starting with google: AMP does not actually make loading any faster. Google just uses it's search monopoly to make it seem so. This is a complete misunderstanding of how AMP works. Google isn't abusing a monopoly to make AMP-pages appear artificially faster; they actually are faster. That's because they're safe to preload by design, as lern_too_spel explained already. The monopoly comment makes even…
Most people here disagree with you, hence why you’ll be down voted. Would AMP be used if it wasn’t for the news carousel - nope - so Google is definitely using their position to embrace and extend open standards.
No doubt. And it's really unfortunate that bias is trumping facts in this case.
>Google is definitely using their position to embrace and extend open standards.
There's nothing wrong with embracing or extending technologies. WebComponents, in this case. But if you're hinting at a third step then I'm sorry but open-source by definition cannot be extinguished.
Re: AMP for email is bad
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When you use google search with javascript enabled AMP results are both prioritized in the listing and pre-loaded in the background. Or Bing search or Baidu search or Yahoo! Japan search and so on. The whole point of AMP is that it can be safely preloaded and prerendered, making it faster than any other web page you can create for people coming from a link aggregator. One of the big advantages it has over Facebook…
AMP is slower for me because I have to press on my screen twice to get to the actual page I wanted to go to. Hence AMP requires at least 0.5s between the time I click on a Google link and get to my real destination?
Re: AMP for email is bad
#45If anyone’s interested I wrote up how I chose an alternative email supplier at https://www.robinwhittleton.com/2018/02/18/dropping-g-suite/
Re: AMP for email is bad
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When you use google search with javascript enabled AMP results are both prioritized in the listing and pre-loaded in the background. Or Bing search or Baidu search or Yahoo! Japan search and so on. The whole point of AMP is that it can be safely preloaded and prerendered, making it faster than any other web page you can create for people coming from a link aggregator. One of the big advantages it has over Facebook…
AMP is slower for me because I have to press on my screen twice to get to the actual page I wanted to go to. Hence AMP requires at least 0.5s between the time I click on a Google link and get to my real destination?
Re: AMP for email is bad
#47AMP for email is targeting a completely different topic than the issues listed here and in the article. And i am shocked everybody is simply not seeing them with their amp4web hate. Amp for email is completely different than amp for web and is a very good solution: 1. Coding emails is really really hard. Every client is rendering emails differently, and Outlook is a beast with every version rendering differently. Amp…
amp4email is far worse and more dangerous than amp4web, and that's why privacy respecting email services are so opposed to it. Tutanota here, and FastMail who posted about it when it was first announced. AMP isn't a subset of HTML, it's it's own proprietary fork of HTML. It's not saying an img tag is okay, it's tell you to use an amp-img tag.
This is another misunderstanding. HTML allows custom tags. This is built into the spec. AMP is plain and regular, standards-compliant HTML.
Re: AMP for email is bad
#48But here’s the thing: while I get criticisms about AMP for web, pretty much none of them apply to AMP for email. The author of this article keeps bringing up points about AMP for web as if they have anything to do with AMP for email.
AMP for email basically does one thing: it enables interactive emails without allowing arbitrary code. It is standard and other email providers can implement it. You’d think this premise would be popular on HN, but it’s not, all because people are still caught up over the effectively unrelated usage of AMP in Google Search.
If you don’t like AMP in Google Search, fine. I find it fairly annoying too, though admittedly once the URL issue is fixed it will probably stop bothering me. Or not at all, since I actually tend to use Duck Duck Go anyways. But can we stop ruining every discussion with this non-sense? It’s tiring, and I don’t even like AMP. It’s gotten to the point where saying something bad about AMP is probably the easiest way to hit HN frontpage with no effort.
(Disclosure, I work for Google, not on anything related to AMP. Seriously, I still dislike AMP.)
Re: AMP for email is bad
#49I really wish the email standard was markdown instead of HTML. I only ever switch from text-only when I need to embed an image, and otherwise occasionally italics or whatever is useful. This could be taken care of with a basic markdown-like language, and avoid getting full HTML advertisements, etc. I really, really don't need your newsletter to be properly formatted in my mailbox, just send a link, I'll open it in th…
Re: AMP for email is bad
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
AMP can be preloaded because it's designed to be preloaded. Regular HTML pages have side effects that can't be accounted for. lern_too_spel is right. That is literally what AMP was built for. Let's watch as HN downvotes the correction while upvoting the misinformation in the top-comment. edit: Downvote and flag. Very disappointing.
Side effects such as?
It'd be quite problematic to load www.example.com/delete-account/confirm, for example.