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

AMP for email is bad

tutanota.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 161 posts

Re: AMP for email is bad

#81

Post by stephenr »

andrewshadura wrote: post #72
captn3m0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google really wanted to make the web fast, they would add native support for text/markdown mimetype in Chrome and ask publishers to just create .md files instead.

text/markdown is a bad idea because it's not backwards compatible. It should be text/plain; markup=markdown, since Markdown is perfectly readable without any software support. See https://blog.freron.com/2011/thoughts-on-writing-emails-usin... for more thoughts on this topic.

backwards compatible with what? In my experience anything served as `text/*` that isn’t more specifically handled (eg `text/html`) will be rendered as text/plain because the type is still `text`.

Edit: rendered, not tendered

Re: AMP for email is bad

#82

Post by snazz »

SquareWheel wrote: post #13
sametmax wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could do that with regular HTML. Google crawling everything would easily let them know if a page is light and easy to preload, giving and incentive to web dev to make it so, instead of creating a lock in solution.

AMP can be preloaded because it's designed to be preloaded. Regular HTML pages have side effects that can't be accounted for. lern_too_spel is right. That is literally what AMP was built for. Let's watch as HN downvotes the correction while upvoting the misinformation in the top-comment. edit: Downvote and flag. Very disappointing.

It solves the preloading problem just fine. It then goes on to create a crapton of new problems.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#83

Post by kingbirdy »

superkuh wrote: post #6

AMP is bad for everything. To be clear, this starts by it not being good for anything. Like on the web the form of AMP used by Google and Cloudflare. Starting with google: AMP does not actually make loading any faster. Google just uses it's search monopoly to make it seem so. When you use google search with javascript enabled AMP results are both prioritized in the listing and pre-loaded in the background. This makes…

> outgoing links to third party domains will be mirrored onto cloudflare's servers and re-hosted

This sounds like an open and shut copyright lawsuit to me, if a DMCA request doesn't take care of it

Re: AMP for email is bad

#84

Post by Kamshak »

superkuh wrote: post #6

AMP is bad for everything. To be clear, this starts by it not being good for anything. Like on the web the form of AMP used by Google and Cloudflare. Starting with google: AMP does not actually make loading any faster. Google just uses it's search monopoly to make it seem so. When you use google search with javascript enabled AMP results are both prioritized in the listing and pre-loaded in the background. This makes…

> AMP does not actually make loading any faster

Every AMP link i click on google loads crazy fast. I don't know why the implementation details or google's incentivizing it would make this not count for some reason.

I don't like what amp is doing to the web either but the user experience is really good, pages do load much quicker than your average page and I find myself preferring them a lot over the uncertainty and frustration when you click other links on a bad connection

Re: AMP for email is bad

#85

Post by itslennysfault »

derefr wrote: post #73
superkuh wrote: post #6

AMP is bad for everything. To be clear, this starts by it not being good for anything. Like on the web the form of AMP used by Google and Cloudflare. Starting with google: AMP does not actually make loading any faster. Google just uses it's search monopoly to make it seem so. When you use google search with javascript enabled AMP results are both prioritized in the listing and pre-loaded in the background. This makes…

I’m assuming you run an ad-blocker? Because the main difference in loading time is seen between a webpage with regular ads, and a webpage with ads that are forced to use the AMP ad framework. Without ads, sure, the difference in total latency before DOMContentLoaded is negligible. > But it certainly doesn’t have any purpose. “HTML” email is actually “email that renders HTML and CSS according to the semantics of Outlo…

Seems like a solution looking for a problem. The internet is plenty fast enough for loading simple news/blog posts. I haven't found find myself thinking "geeze I wish this article would load faster" in a long time.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#86

Post by joshuamorton »

itslennysfault wrote: post #85
derefr wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m assuming you run an ad-blocker? Because the main difference in loading time is seen between a webpage with regular ads, and a webpage with ads that are forced to use the AMP ad framework. Without ads, sure, the difference in total latency before DOMContentLoaded is negligible. > But it certainly doesn’t have any purpose. “HTML” email is actually “email that renders HTML and CSS according to the semantics of Outlo…

Seems like a solution looking for a problem. The internet is plenty fast enough for loading simple news/blog posts. I haven't found find myself thinking "geeze I wish this article would load faster" in a long time.

Are you one of the hundreds of millions of people who browses the internet primarily on a 3g or slower mobile connection in Asia?

Re: AMP for email is bad

#87

Post by jeffk_teh_haxor »

kingbirdy wrote: post #83
superkuh wrote: post #6

AMP is bad for everything. To be clear, this starts by it not being good for anything. Like on the web the form of AMP used by Google and Cloudflare. Starting with google: AMP does not actually make loading any faster. Google just uses it's search monopoly to make it seem so. When you use google search with javascript enabled AMP results are both prioritized in the listing and pre-loaded in the background. This makes…

> outgoing links to third party domains will be mirrored onto cloudflare's servers and re-hosted This sounds like an open and shut copyright lawsuit to me, if a DMCA request doesn't take care of it

HN 2019: can't scroll down for a single page without seeing "hackers" begging for more lawsuits and government regulation.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#88

Post by javagram »

swiley wrote: post #26
tholman wrote: post #15

There are absolutely no standards at all when trying to code emails, it takes hours trying to make something that remotely resembles the same thing on every engine (Microsoft outlook rendering emails with their ms word engine, google doing all sorts of different things on desktops vs phones) - and hours more of testing and tweaking css and markup hacks to make them readable. Although this is another puzzle piece to s…

It’s a pain because no one wants it! Emails are for text, if you have something to say you can write it out.

Except that html email is used because it works a lot better (i.e. people DO want it)

Try sending your marketing campaign as plain text and then try sending it as carefully crafted HTML mail. Unless your target is a specific small segment of users who love text/plain, HTML will do better and make you more money.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#89

Post by captn3m0 »

andrewshadura wrote: post #72
captn3m0 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Google really wanted to make the web fast, they would add native support for text/markdown mimetype in Chrome and ask publishers to just create .md files instead.

text/markdown is a bad idea because it's not backwards compatible. It should be text/plain; markup=markdown, since Markdown is perfectly readable without any software support. See https://blog.freron.com/2011/thoughts-on-writing-emails-usin... for more thoughts on this topic.

Thanks for the link. I get that this would help with emails, but pushing markdown into text/plain wouldn't be helpful for web content on browsers.

The web already has Content Negotiation to let older clients prefer html or plain text content.

Re: AMP for email is bad

#90

Post by macspoofing »

superkuh wrote: post #6

AMP is bad for everything. To be clear, this starts by it not being good for anything. Like on the web the form of AMP used by Google and Cloudflare. Starting with google: AMP does not actually make loading any faster. Google just uses it's search monopoly to make it seem so. When you use google search with javascript enabled AMP results are both prioritized in the listing and pre-loaded in the background. This makes…

>AMP is bad for everything.

Not everything. I get all the arguments against it and I don't disagree but man ... AMP is fast. It is really fast, and there is something to be said about forcing content providers to build their web application that makes them this fast.

>AMP does not actually make loading any faster.

What are you talking about. It does make it faster. You feel it, even on my modern Pixel 3 on LTE. Can you imagine if you're running a feature phone on 3G?

Post reply on HN