6 ms·

Because Google will treat your content preferentially if you do. To quote an earlier post of mine from a different thread [1]: AMP can impose constraints becau

by niftich 10y ago

Because Google will treat your content preferentially if you do. To quote an earlier post of mine from a different thread [1]: AMP can impose constraints because it's a corporate effort to re-frame content in a way that provides centralized ad serving, tracking, and the like. It gives the content publishers the same tools (ads, tracking) they have to provide themselves with on the open web, while simultaneously benefiting those like Google who will put their own viewport and context around that content. It's not that much different from when an individual wants to publish on Medium or Tumblr, so the platform provides the author with a box to put text in, a dashboard, view tracking, and stuff the author wants, while they get to host interesting content with which to attract an audience for ads. It's a win-win, symbiotic relationship, while on the self-hosted web, every publisher is on their own. This isn't about HTML vs AMP at all. It's about business models, which are given in AMP, but left as an exercise for the publisher on the open web. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12272973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12272973

CaptSpify 10y ago
So I'm giving up control of my site, so that Google can strong-arm themselves to extract more value from it? I think I'll pass, thanks
- niftich 10y ago
  It's more of a mutually-consented handholding with small amounts of arm-twisting. Your content needs to make money for you to stay afloat -- if it doesn't, you're not in the target market for AMP -- so Google gives you some tools to that they can surface your content, and you get their ad and analytics infrastructure and their preferential treatment; the premise is both Google and the publisher win more than they lose.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    But this is clearly only a plus for Google, by abusing the relationship with the publisher. The logic is circular here. If Google wants people to make better sites, then why don't they just rank sites higher if they aren't full of bloat?
    - cstrahan 10y ago
      If I read the above posts correctly, it sounds like it's not just Google that benefits; supposedly Google provides ads and such, which provides the publisher with revenue -- the publisher would otherwise have to find ad networks and such themselves. If a publisher already has advertising revenue sorted out, and they're OK with the expense in terms of time spent managing that, then there's little incentive and so they pass. How much of that is correct? I don't know. I'm just explaining what (I think) the posts above were trying to say. (Edit: spelling)

by niftich 10y ago

CaptSpify 10y ago

So I'm giving up control of my site, so that Google can strong-arm themselves to extract more value from it? I think I'll pass, thanks

niftich 10y ago
It's more of a mutually-consented handholding with small amounts of arm-twisting. Your content needs to make money for you to stay afloat -- if it doesn't, you're not in the target market for AMP -- so Google gives you some tools to that they can surface your content, and you get their ad and analytics infrastructure and their preferential treatment; the premise is both Google and the publisher win more than they lose.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  But this is clearly only a plus for Google, by abusing the relationship with the publisher. The logic is circular here. If Google wants people to make better sites, then why don't they just rank sites higher if they aren't full of bloat?
  - cstrahan 10y ago
    If I read the above posts correctly, it sounds like it's not just Google that benefits; supposedly Google provides ads and such, which provides the publisher with revenue -- the publisher would otherwise have to find ad networks and such themselves. If a publisher already has advertising revenue sorted out, and they're OK with the expense in terms of time spent managing that, then there's little incentive and so they pass. How much of that is correct? I don't know. I'm just explaining what (I think) the posts above were trying to say. (Edit: spelling)