What about Facebook instant articles and Apple News? Are these better than AMP?
Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results
431–440 of 566 posts
Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results
#432AMP really has to go away, its a MITM attack on the internet. Google discontinues so many services, why is AMP not one of them yet?
I agree that AMP is a major attack on the internet, not to mention the fact that it makes it way slower [1] and hard to understand what you're browsing. The worst part is that my friends send me AMP links all the time even though I use DDG to avoid this stuff. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18893808
For me, this is a new and helpful way of thinking about the relative value of DDG over Google.
Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The useragent (browser) enforces this. This assumes the user agent is actually an agent of the user, and not the AMP provider, which is demonstrably [1] not the case. [1] https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/467#issuecom...
Chrome does enforce the matching signature. Browsers without Signed Exchange support will not likely ever get a signed exchange as they do not advertise support for it in the `Accept` request header.
I think we are talking about different things here. You, as an AMP engineer are talking about how Chrome implemented this [1], but I'm talking about how Chrome is not a user agent, because it demonstrably acts as Google's agent, not the user's.
[1] Which is unverifiable, we just have to take your word for it.
Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who switched from Android to iOS and even dual carried for a period of time, I found Android light years more buggy AND janky than iOS. Google still remains years behind there, and I don't see that changing.
Interesting. I wonder if usage patterns are a factor here. I also dual carried android/iphone (actually, I still do). I honestly consider the iOS of today the buggiest software I've ever used.
I find that MobileMail is horribly buggy, but there are rarely any bugs in my usage path (Gmail and other Google apps, Safari, Messages, Notes, Camera and Photos, Snapchat, Apollo, GitHub, Apple Music, my bank app, and a few others). What apps do you use most and what's so buggy?
Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results
#435Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even better than blocking AMP is just redirecting to the proper page[0]. [0]: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amp2html/
Yessss. Any chrome equivalent
Aside from installing Firefox (best option), there is this:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/redirect-amp-to-ht...
Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google can choose today which site (original or AMP cache) to show in their search results. Today, as an end user, I know, via the URL, when I land on a Google AMP site. That said, Google already has control of every AMP page because the spec REQUIRES you to load a piece of Google controlled/hosted JS onto your page. That JS can change at any time without "signed exchanges" being aware.
This concern, Google controlled/hosted JS, is independent from Signed Exchanges and specific to AMP. At the same time, the AMP project is actively working to move the origin (control/host) of the AMP Javascript to the publisher's own domain, as well as allow a version served on an origin owned by the OpenJS Foundation, rather than Google.
Will this mean that sites will be able to finally lock in a version of AMP? The idea that there is one place right now that is required for all AMP sites that can dynamically update the behavior of all such pages is, in fact, terrifying to me; like, I went into reading this discussion thinking AMP wasn't making anything worse and being super unhappy that anyone even thought to denigrate signed exchanges (as I want those deployed everywhere in order to provide censorship resistant web caching) and then I got convinced by kbenson that this is actually a bit of a dystopia scenario for the web once you involve AMP... I even managed to find an issue about solving this problem with subresource integrity (one you were involved in) that apparently got closed with prejudice (not by you) under an insistence that this javascript injection be an "evergreen" codebase lest somehow everything becomes super insecure, which to me just indicates a fundamental architectural flaw in the security model of AMP :/.
Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everyone joined the https party. The additional overhead on sites isn't justified for sites you don't even log into.
I disagree. There's no reason to leak things to everyone on the planet, even if what's leaked isn't the most-damaging-to -leak-thing possible. As an example, it annoys me that the Texas Instruments site isn't encrypted, leaking my interest in parts to anybody listening.
Even if Texas Instruments implemented SSL the fact that you went there would not be a secret to anyone who can see your packets due to SNI[0]. HTTPS is really only useful when you want to hide the contents of a message, not the recipient.
Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google - Things take time, but Google did get fined in the past and there's a good chance they get fined again (and forced to change things).
Fined ≠ "smacked." To Google, EU fines are just a cost of doing business. Like FedEx eating parking tickets. Until Google is fined to a degree that it impacts its share price, nothing will change.
All of the 3 big antitrust cases with fines the parent linked to resulted in Google changing their practices.
So IMHO "nothing will change" does not seem right.
Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their ad business is more or less their only business. Everything else is paid for by that.
which is why it should be segregated from the products people find useful
Exactly; this would - if done correctly - result in Google collapsing pretty much immediately, as they should have done a decade ago.
Re: Google no longer providing original URL in AMP for image search results
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How does anyone think this is a good idea? A while back on one of the AMP discussions here, someone from Google weighed in. They said the data was clear: users not only accept it, they love AMP. I asked how they knew that, because if it was, say, just tracking how many people tried the 2-3 tap process to get to the original URL compared to how many people just engaged whatever you showed them, then the data might b…
Companies with shitty UI often make unfounded claims that "users prefer it." Adobe is another prime offender here. If anyone's word should NOT be taken as gospel for UI or branding, it's Google's.
Reminds me of the Office 2013 ribbon bar - users preferred it apparently! They couldn't find any of the options they'd used for 20+ years but somehow preferred it!
Thank goodness menus for Office still existed on the Mac.