4 ms·

AMP is yet another good idea that Google didn't test properly or think through. As far as I can see, you can't click through to the actual page from an AMP page

AMP is yet another good idea that Google didn't test properly or think through. As far as I can see, you can't click through to the actual page from an AMP page, which sucks if you want to share the link or something.

edent 10y ago
On some AMP sites I see "click here to comment" which takes a user back to the main site. But, yes, I agree. User hostile - and there are plenty of comments on Google's product forums to support that viewpoint.
oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
> AMP is yet another good idea Can you explain why AMP is a good idea? I still don't really understand it, I'm afraid.
- PaulHoule 10y ago
  Serving everything from one hostname means (i) you don't get 20 DNS lookups to serve a page, one of which might hang up for 5 seconds; (ii) you can use a protocol like http/2 to avoid TCP and SSL renegotiations; (iii) you can stop people from loading up pages with 20MB of Javascript. There is no doubt that AMP is fast. The other angle is how it reinforces Google's position for advertising, analytics, search, video and such. On one hand you could say it is "evil" because they are a monopolist, but the status quo is so bad when ad networks are weighing you down with multiple tracking pixels, malware service, etc.
  - oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
    I guess my question then becomes "why does this require AMP?". I mean, I can build a site using standard technologies that doesn't perform 20 DNS lookups or require 20MB of javascript to display. I can do it with 0B Javascript if you really want. Is AMP really about encouraging best practises rather than introducing some new revolutionary technology?
    - PaulHoule 10y ago
      It is a syndication format. If you wanted to build a mobile directory or search engine you could make your own AMP server and do something like what Google does. Google gets more gain out of it than anybody else because of their dominance of that space, having proven monetization methods in place, etc. If the shared Google result is displayed on the Google network they can reuse the same TCP connection, which gives them an edge. You are free to build fast pages with web technology, in fact that is what I do. Most people seem to have a hard time with it, particularly because they include a huge amount of stuff using Javascript inclusions from third party sites and this is a critical technology since this is where the money comes from.
    - ominous 10y ago
      Encouraging? No. Enforcing.
    - ec109685 10y ago
      AMP allows google to prefetch and pre-render AMP content before a user clicks given it can ensure the content does not do malicious things because the AMP format is tightly controlled. The end result is that when clicking on an AMP result, it loads instantly.
      - acdha 10y ago
        Prefetching is possible using standard web technologies and that improves the security footing since it follows the normal browser origin policies. The actual reason for AMP is that it gives Google control: the good side of that is that companies have an outside check on performance — think about how many companies exist where internal politics means that “this will hurt SEO” will be listened to but “this page is too heavy” coming from inside will be ignored — and the bad side is that anyone who adopts it is binding their technical capabilities closely to Google's decisions.
        ec109685 10y ago
        Pre rendering is not possible on iOS Safari and pre fetching is dangerous given you don't know if the origin can support it or not. AMP is faster than the alternative.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- ClassyJacket 10y ago
  It's just fast. It loads the page damn near instantly. Similarly to facebook Instant Articles.
AJ007 10y ago
Perhaps who ever came up with it, an engineer, had some good ideas, and then when Google executives took a look they said wonderful here is an opportunity to: - Cut off third party ad networks - Reduce bounce rates from Google.com to outside sites
- Veen 10y ago
  I think AMP is the wrong solution, but it does support quite a few third party ad networks: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad
- JCole 10y ago
  > Third party ad networks can transact on AMP pages. (http://rubiconproject.com/press-releases/rubicon-project-launches-first-header-bidding-solution-compliant-with-google-amp/ http://rubiconproject.com/press-releases/rubicon-project-lau...) > Reducing bounce rates that are due to slow pagespeed is probably a good thing!
the_duke 10y ago
Of course you can't because now you just share Google's AMP link and they can keep harvesting data...
IanCal 10y ago
I don't really understand why it's not done as a typical content-negotiation thing. Perhaps there's a good reason but since my first query of why they were doing something wasn't valid HTML and the reply was "O(fun) is important"...

edent 10y ago

On some AMP sites I see "click here to comment" which takes a user back to the main site. But, yes, I agree. User hostile - and there are plenty of comments on Google's product forums to support that viewpoint.

oneeyedpigeon 10y ago

> AMP is yet another good idea Can you explain why AMP is a good idea? I still don't really understand it, I'm afraid.

PaulHoule 10y ago
Serving everything from one hostname means (i) you don't get 20 DNS lookups to serve a page, one of which might hang up for 5 seconds; (ii) you can use a protocol like http/2 to avoid TCP and SSL renegotiations; (iii) you can stop people from loading up pages with 20MB of Javascript. There is no doubt that AMP is fast. The other angle is how it reinforces Google's position for advertising, analytics, search, video and such. On one hand you could say it is "evil" because they are a monopolist, but the status quo is so bad when ad networks are weighing you down with multiple tracking pixels, malware service, etc.
- oneeyedpigeon 10y ago
  I guess my question then becomes "why does this require AMP?". I mean, I can build a site using standard technologies that doesn't perform 20 DNS lookups or require 20MB of javascript to display. I can do it with 0B Javascript if you really want. Is AMP really about encouraging best practises rather than introducing some new revolutionary technology?
  - PaulHoule 10y ago
    It is a syndication format. If you wanted to build a mobile directory or search engine you could make your own AMP server and do something like what Google does. Google gets more gain out of it than anybody else because of their dominance of that space, having proven monetization methods in place, etc. If the shared Google result is displayed on the Google network they can reuse the same TCP connection, which gives them an edge. You are free to build fast pages with web technology, in fact that is what I do. Most people seem to have a hard time with it, particularly because they include a huge amount of stuff using Javascript inclusions from third party sites and this is a critical technology since this is where the money comes from.
  - ominous 10y ago
    Encouraging? No. Enforcing.
  - ec109685 10y ago
    AMP allows google to prefetch and pre-render AMP content before a user clicks given it can ensure the content does not do malicious things because the AMP format is tightly controlled. The end result is that when clicking on an AMP result, it loads instantly.
    - acdha 10y ago
      Prefetching is possible using standard web technologies and that improves the security footing since it follows the normal browser origin policies. The actual reason for AMP is that it gives Google control: the good side of that is that companies have an outside check on performance — think about how many companies exist where internal politics means that “this will hurt SEO” will be listened to but “this page is too heavy” coming from inside will be ignored — and the bad side is that anyone who adopts it is binding their technical capabilities closely to Google's decisions.
      - ec109685 10y ago
        Pre rendering is not possible on iOS Safari and pre fetching is dangerous given you don't know if the origin can support it or not. AMP is faster than the alternative.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ClassyJacket 10y ago
It's just fast. It loads the page damn near instantly. Similarly to facebook Instant Articles.

AJ007 10y ago

Perhaps who ever came up with it, an engineer, had some good ideas, and then when Google executives took a look they said wonderful here is an opportunity to: - Cut off third party ad networks - Reduce bounce rates from Google.com to outside sites

Veen 10y ago
I think AMP is the wrong solution, but it does support quite a few third party ad networks: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad
JCole 10y ago
> Third party ad networks can transact on AMP pages. (http://rubiconproject.com/press-releases/rubicon-project-launches-first-header-bidding-solution-compliant-with-google-amp/ http://rubiconproject.com/press-releases/rubicon-project-lau...) > Reducing bounce rates that are due to slow pagespeed is probably a good thing!

the_duke 10y ago

Of course you can't because now you just share Google's AMP link and they can keep harvesting data...

IanCal 10y ago

I don't really understand why it's not done as a typical content-negotiation thing. Perhaps there's a good reason but since my first query of why they were doing something wasn't valid HTML and the reply was "O(fun) is important"...