Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMP for email is a terrible idea

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 483 posts

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#61

Post by mankash666 »

ZephyrP wrote: post #30
mankash666 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - expressing an opinion is called "freedom of speech", which goes hand in hand with the free market. You'd be amazed at the number of initiatives launched by the supposed monopoly (Google) failing in the free market. Nacl lost out to wasm. Chrome OS never really took off. Despite people's gripes about AMP, consumers are clearly loving faster, more responsive websites and hence it's relevance. Let this play out and…

> No - expressing an opinion is called "freedom of speech" imagine thinking this was a killer counterpoint

I don't know what a "killer" counter point is, but I do know that it's accurate

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#62

Post by ClintEhrlich »

amthewiz wrote: post #39

Seems over-engineered. Why not the following simple setup - - user receives email with a link (text or image) that points to some AMP page - user clicks on the link Gmail: - renders the AMP page in-place, replacing email content Non-gmail clients: - keep whatever "link click" behavior they currently have This does not render interactive content in email automatically and requires a click, but that click is important…

This was exactly what occurred to me. I haven't read the spec, but I presume they want to display AMP content pre-click.

As you pointed out, that violates user's expectations about what security vulnerabilities they are initiating when they open an email. Indeed, even lay users may sense that it just feels "wrong" for an email to act dynamically without anything being clicked.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#65

Post by ocdtrekkie »

amthewiz wrote: post #39

Seems over-engineered. Why not the following simple setup - - user receives email with a link (text or image) that points to some AMP page - user clicks on the link Gmail: - renders the AMP page in-place, replacing email content Non-gmail clients: - keep whatever "link click" behavior they currently have This does not render interactive content in email automatically and requires a click, but that click is important…

Indeed. I can definitely see a reason one might want a dynamic experience in an email. I'd love to interact with some notifications without leaving my inbox. But that'd be select apps I want to work with, not something my email client should assume I want. Every marketing email I get shouldn't be an interactive page by any means.

I direct a lot of things to email like social notifications just so everything comes to one place. I end up doing a lot of bounces off to various sites to "respond" with a Like, +1, Retweet, etc.

But like, an interactive email should be a whitelisted opt-in behavior. "Hey, I want my Twitter notifs to be interactive so I can reply and retweet without leaving my email, so let me enable the Twitter app in my email client."

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#66

Post by username223 »

colordrops wrote: post #36
FridgeSeal wrote: post #13

" “modernize” email, allowing “engaging, interactive, and actionable email experiences.” " Whenever a service or company purports to make something "engaging" and "interactive" you just know that useability and actual, tangible usefulness are going to go out the window in favour of marketer-driven choices. We don't 'engage more' with your software/service because you changed everything to optimise for engagement and…

You are making a mistake in thinking you are the customer. You are the product.

You are making a mistake in participating in Google garbage as a user. You are an item for sale.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#67

Post by kbenson »

ShroudedNight wrote: post #55
chrismorgan wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the pain of HTML email is Microsoft’s fault, because they have persisted in using the MSO (Word) HTML render/editor in Outlook and Windows Mail, and it’s worse than IE 5.0. (Outlook 2003 switched to the IE renderer, and everyone rejoiced; then the Outlook 2007 went back to the MSO renderer for rather crummy reasons and all web people boggled and despaired.) Sure, other clients have their inconsistencies, but…

I'm fairly certain that Lotus Notes is deserving of at least as much scorn for its mail rendering as Outlook.

Considering I did ISP tech support, including mail client setup, for a few years in the late 90's and early 2000's and never once encountered Lotus Notes, I think it may be like in kind, but nowhere near like in quantity.

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#69

Post by ehnto »

makecheck wrote: post #31

Nothing says “we’re listening to your concerns about AMP” like rolling it out further to interfere with a function that is even less suited for AMP. Also, technology companies have a real problem assigning appropriate value to maintenance tasks that just keep things stable and usable. I’ve had infrastructure responsibilities over the years and the hardest thing about it was that nobody really knows or cares how much…

Part of why I don't advocate for CDNs when you don't need them is because I want to build robust sites that work for years untouched. For timespans over a year, anything not on your server is brittle. Oops, CDN changed its URL/didn't update their ssl ciphers/went bust and shut down completely and now {js-framework}/{css-library} is missing and my site is broken. What an unforeseeable circumstance!

Re: AMP for email is a terrible idea

#70

Post by falcolas »

celim307 wrote: post #19

As heresey as it might be to HN I can't wait until everyone in the world onboards onto one unified communication platform. Once (and if) lte and unlimited data becomes ubiquitous I look forward to be able to make phone calls, email, messages, video messaging, blogging etc all from one username and account. I want to hand someone my username and be done with it. Facebook is trying, but it's execution leaves much to be…

So long as said account has not been banned for tripping some unknown algorithm, and have received the "this is the last communication on this matter" message. At which point in such a world where there is one, and only one, communication platform, do you even exist?
Post reply on HN