41–50 of 497 posts
Hasn’t Safari already been doing this for ages with no issues?
Yes, it has been doing it for ages, both on macOS and iOS.
It does not do anything like obfuscating where the document comes from, like Chrome on Android does to hide the fact that they are serving AMP pages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure why this is being downvoted, this is an accurate albeit sardonic description of what’s happening. People don’t want to visit AMP sites, they want to visit the site that’s the original source for their news, etc...
I mean, depends who you mean by people? I'm pretty happy to go to amp sites. The thing I care about is the content.
> “Showing the full URL may detract from the parts of the URL that are more important to making a security decision on a webpage," Chromium software engineer Livvie Lin said in a design document earlier this year. I’m a software engineer, too, but I would never make such an important UX decision because I know that is not my area of expertise. I hope they’ve gotten significant user feedback on this before rolling it…
How do they justify such design decisions? Are they asked by someone else to figure out how to make such wierd things happen as they just do as ordered?
When the final version is implemented in a couple of years you will no longer see any URL, that way it won't be as evident that most sites on the web will be loaded from Google. Google is also attacking this issue from a different perspective with Signed Exchanges [1][2], to fake the URL and ensure their success in becoming the gatekeepers of the internet. If you refuse to become a content provider for Google's visio…
Yeah the endgame would involve a play-store like 30% cut of any revenue, subscription, ads, anything. 30% cut from non-Google ad network revenue as well. At that point publishers won't have a choice any more because of the Chrome and Google search monopolies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure why this is being downvoted, this is an accurate albeit sardonic description of what’s happening. People don’t want to visit AMP sites, they want to visit the site that’s the original source for their news, etc...
I mean, depends who you mean by people? I'm pretty happy to go to amp sites. The thing I care about is the content.
We either express our voices, no matter if they're fringe (and hope it catches on) or we can just give up and not even write these articles any more.
IMO this is the real reason why they're pushing hard towards this: However, it's also worth considering that making the web address less important, as this feature does, benefits Google as a company. Google's goal with Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) and similar technologies is to keep users on Google-hosted content as much as possible, and Chrome for Android already modifies the address bar on AMP pages to hide that…
Edit: at least you knew you were the customer with AOL and paid them with clear terms for access.
I still haven't found a good answer why they do this. "Makes it harder to tell if the current site is legitimate" sounds like an excuse. If you are the perfect target for a phishing attack (= clicks on everything, enters passwords everywhere, has no clue about host names) then you also won't be able to understand what Chrome presents you in the address bar after obfuscation. My best explanation so far is that the Chr…
Trying hard not to sound like a conspiracy theorist. However, it's pretty obvious this benefits a walled garden strategy. With things like AMP, "rich snippets", etc, they keep eyeballs on Google owned properties longer. Slowly deprecating urls over time makes it less visually apparent. AOL was able to sell "keywords" this way, because it wasn't always obvious to their users how to get to the real internet.