It's actually a pretty nifty feature when you're browsing the web from a plane's slow wifi.
Any better than noscript? How about lynx?
The Problem with AMP
91–100 of 353 posts
Re: The Problem with AMP
#92I'm glad AMP's weaknesses are finally gaining attention and making their rounds. Google should not be allowed to steal publishers' traffic and strong-arm them into going along with it.
Controversial question: At what point would Google start to be considered an antitrust issue? I know the EU has made some noise about it, but I'm a bit surprised I haven't heard more about it here in the U.S.
In my opinion, they've already violated the trust of publishers. Take Google Lyrics for example:
http://phandroid.com/2014/12/31/google-lyrics-search/
In all fairness, lyric sites were terrible. Slow, riddled with ads, and sometimes incorrect. While Google's lyrics are a great service to the user, they're at the top of search and displayed inline. There's no reason to go to lyric sites anymore.
My biggest fear is Structured Data and AMP. With Structure Data, you volunteer your most valuable data in a format Google can easily consume and adapt to its own needs - all so you can get better page rankings. When Google introduces its own service in the same market - just like lyrics - you're effectively cut off from your audience. And with AMP, you don't have to wait for Google to siphon your traffic - you're volunteering.
Re: The Problem with AMP
#93AMP 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 get the frustration, but mobile sites in general also have this problem. "Request desktop site" should be a more prominent feature, at least in safari which is what I'm familiar with. It's quite buried unfortunately and I think that more non-techies would benefit from knowing about it.
And websites should honor the "Request desktop version" at all time. It's frustrating when you enable the option and it still bring up the mobile version.
Re: The Problem with AMP
#94AMP 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 browse AMP pages often and don't have any issues with it. It's great for getting news quickly in one page load. If I need to interact with it more, I'll simply go to the site hosting the AMP page
Re: The Problem with AMP
#95Do the amp links from google results to Reddit seem broken to anyone else? Edit: sorry that was actually in the article.
Yes. I disabled my mobile ad blocker, and then the Redit AMP pages started working for me.
Re: The Problem with AMP
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Sure, the AMP page looks much cleaner because it lacks the ads, side bars, and other junk that the Washington Post puts on their normal page. But they want that junk. If everyone on laptops and desktops starts using your trick, the Washington Post will adapt and find a way to put the same junk on the AMP page. Then we're back to square one.
As far as I can tell, your method of viewing a nice clean page depends on your trick not becoming popular!
Re: The Problem with AMP
#97Every time I post a Wall Street Journal article, the first comment complains about the paywall. AMP is a reliable WSJ-paywall workaround. Could someone help me reconcile?
Re: The Problem with AMP
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Controversial question: At what point would Google start to be considered an antitrust issue? I know the EU has made some noise about it, but I'm a bit surprised I haven't heard more about it here in the U.S.
In my opinion, they've already violated the trust of publishers. Take Google Lyrics for example: http://phandroid.com/2014/12/31/google-lyrics-search/ In all fairness, lyric sites were terrible. Slow, riddled with ads, and sometimes incorrect. While Google's lyrics are a great service to the user, they're at the top of search and displayed inline. There's no reason to go to lyric sites anymore. My biggest fear is Str…
Thanks, I appreciate your view! That's how it strikes me as well; that Google provides unparalleled sticks and carrots towards publishers that will end up undoing those same publishers, while they (publishers) volunteer to go along and aid in the process! (Maybe they have little choice in the race to get traffic?)
In other words, Google seems like a very powerful gatekeeper of content that ends up consuming the content providers. Smacks of an abuse of their position.
Re: The Problem with AMP
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, "…
> Which leads to the question, why is google doing this? They, you, could easily promote AMP pages while not masking the real URL! Perhaps to allow the content to be served from a CDN (over HTTPS), without requiring the site to CNAME over their domain to Google. If webmasters are willing to CNAME over their domain to a caching proxy, then a less intrusive design is possible[0], such as the one recently announced by C…
Most major sites use a CDN already. It's really to keep users within google.
Re: The Problem with AMP
#100AMP 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 never had an issue with it. Actually I try to click on AMP links when I'm searching for news because I know I'll get an experience that doesn't suck.