Live data from Hacker News

The Problem with AMP

80x24.net

61–70 of 353 posts

Re: The Problem with AMP

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean the Google CDN cache, just don't include the Google CDN file and host it yourself instead

Then google doesn't consider it a valid AMP file and won't give it the AMP tag. The spec literally requires you to use the CDN.

That's not what the OP asked though. If you're fine not having an icon that's "all the good things that makes it fast".

I am curious if the cloudfare cached pages are going to get a logo, though.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#63
post #6

AMP is one of the most frustrating experiences I've had with Google. the fact that it's foisted on users, with no option to disable it, makes it borderline infuriating. If you're stuck on an AMP page in your mobile browser, you can click on the browser's "Request desktop site" option to load the full page.

I am really curious if an ordinary user gets frustrated with AMP as much as an HN reader does.

PS: Not intending to be sarcastic. PS2: I work for google, but not on something amp related.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#64

Using https://encrypted.google.com/ to avoid AMP is a great tip. I'll be doing that, does anybody have more information on what that URL is for? Is it possible to set it as default on iOS/Android somehow? AMP really frustratingly breaks link sharing, and I'd like to totally avoid it.

This StackExchange answer[0] has a nice overview of what encrypted.google.com does.

[0]: http://security.stackexchange.com/a/32374

Re: The Problem with AMP

#65
post #15

It's so strange to see Google repeating all the same mistakes AOL did so many years ago. No I don't want your fucking garden, I want the network. If you get in the way of that I'm done with you.

Everything seems to be moving towards gardens right now. Certainly not just Google. It's one of the things that depresses me most about tech right now.

They where when AOL was big too.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#66
post #29

One thing I love about AMP, that seems to never be mentioned when people discuss it, is viewing AMP-HTML pages on my laptop. I wrote a small chrome extension that always forwards my page to the equivalent AMP page (if one exists) and the experience of reading the news is so much better. AMP pages off mobile are really really amazing. Compare Non-AMP[0] vs AMP[1] [0] http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Trump-on-the-…

Why is that better? I guess it's nice that the video doesn't auto-play, but otherwise the only difference I see is margins that are way too wide. edit: This is with an ad blocker on though.

SFGate is a bad example because they don't set margins. Most other sites are a lot better.

Here's a much better example.

AMP - https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/post-nation/wp/2...

No-AMP - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/1...

Re: The Problem with AMP

#67

I really prefer Google and still use it when I'm on my desktop, but I find myself using Bing more and more when I'm on my phone just to avoid AMP. If Google made an easy way to jump from the AMP page to the original page then I wouldn't mind it so much. The # 1 reason why AMP bothers me is when I want to share a link with someone, I don't want to send an AMP link.

This, exactly. AMP pages get in the way of sharing content – or at least in the way of being transparent about what you're sharing and where it's coming from.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the people who designed the page in the first place should be able to make it just as fast without using AMP.

> But the people who designed the page in the first place should be able to make it just as fast without using AMP. ...but they don't, which is the point. I'll throw my hat in on being a fan of reading news on AMP pages as well (though reddit amp does seem completely broken). I wouldn't care in the least if news site x instead wrote a fast site, I'd happily use that instead. But until they do, yeah, as a user I'll cl…

It would be a lot better if instead they just ranked pages with slow load times and JavaScript lower, oh wait, that makes it harder for ads...

Re: The Problem with AMP

#69
post #15

It's so strange to see Google repeating all the same mistakes AOL did so many years ago. No I don't want your fucking garden, I want the network. If you get in the way of that I'm done with you.

Everything seems to be moving towards gardens right now. Certainly not just Google. It's one of the things that depresses me most about tech right now.

The most depressing part of it is that the HN community don't seem to care and will actively cheer it in many cases (walled garden IRC and cloud in general). The only reason we have an open internet at all is because techies cared back in the day.

Re: The Problem with AMP

#70
post #63
post #6

AMP is one of the most frustrating experiences I've had with Google. the fact that it's foisted on users, with no option to disable it, makes it borderline infuriating. If you're stuck on an AMP page in your mobile browser, you can click on the browser's "Request desktop site" option to load the full page.

I am really curious if an ordinary user gets frustrated with AMP as much as an HN reader does. PS: Not intending to be sarcastic. PS2: I work for google, but not on something amp related.

I've seen ordinary users get frustrated with it, but they don't understand why. They don't know what AMP is, and they don't realize they are on an AMP page. For example, the URL bar says they are on Google but they are reading a Slate article. The web is already confusing enough, and AMP makes it worse. Many ordinary users think they are reading content from Google, like that famous CNN interview where a lady said, "I read it in Facebook"

Which leads to the question, why is google doing this? They, you, could easily promote AMP pages while not masking the real URL! The answer is simple, profits over what's best for users.

Edit: I just did a search to find the CNN interview I mentioned, copied the URL to share here, and look it's a google URL. WHY? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/trump-v...

Post reply on HN