> AMP took off. Over two billion pages are using AMP I don't think I've ever seen an AMP-enabled website, I certainly never noticed any buttons suggesting I visit the original website.
Only works on Chrome.
Please Make Google AMP Optional
61–70 of 457 posts
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#62I've never actually seen AMP "in the wild". Is it because my only mobile browsing is with Firefox on Android?
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#63> this jeannie is firmly out of the bottle It's "genie"
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/android/
So my statement wasn't completely accurate but there still is no support for iOS. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-ons-firefox-ios
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content/ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution. This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stea…
I don't think its comparable to Apple. Apple is trying to make the user experience of existing content better (where it is located) Google is taking the content and serving it themselves. The problem is sites being slow in the first place, but Apple isn't commandeering the content itself like Google is by creating a mode where the browser can enhance legibility of any article.
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#66I'm trying to imagine the uproar if Apple had done AMP instead of Google. Somehow AMP has some staunch defenders, but everything, and I mean everything about how it's been approached has felt very anti-web and pro-Google. The overall concept may be sound, but the implementation, and the inability to escape it, has significantly hurt my opinion of Google. In fact, I no longer use Google's search because of it.
Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content/ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution. This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stea…
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#67I'm trying to imagine the uproar if Apple had done AMP instead of Google. Somehow AMP has some staunch defenders, but everything, and I mean everything about how it's been approached has felt very anti-web and pro-Google. The overall concept may be sound, but the implementation, and the inability to escape it, has significantly hurt my opinion of Google. In fact, I no longer use Google's search because of it.
Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content/ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution. This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stea…
This is certainly not true. The reason no many content creators and publishers moved to AMP is to not hurt their SEO. If you check most of the AMP articles targeted to publishers, it's addressed as get on the AMP wagon now or else you are doomed when Google starts ranking AMP pages higher.
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet being turned into a shitty place by bad developers and advertisers is why AMP exists in the first place.
You just said "Jimmy pissed in the pool, so who cares if Timmy shits in it?"
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I moved off of gmail a few months ago, pretty happy about that but man duckduckgo fucking suuuucks. Really wish there was a nonprofit (with a strong privacy policy) wikipedia like .org solution that provided good results.
What problems are you running in to? I've been using duckduckgo at work for just over a year now (took a change of job as an ideal time to try a complete switch in search engine too), and it has been excellent. I've been getting almost as good results as I do from google on even from some fairly vague terms, and comparable to Google when I give it explicit text to search for. Unlike Google it also seems to pay a lot…
Re: Please Make Google AMP Optional
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet being turned into a shitty place by bad developers and advertisers is why AMP exists in the first place.
You just said "Jimmy pissed in the pool, so who cares if Timmy shits in it?"