5 ms·

"We remove image data that is invisible to users, such as thumbnail and geolocation metadata. For JPEG images, we also reduce quality and color samples if they

by pmlnr 10y ago

"We remove image data that is invisible to users, such as thumbnail and geolocation metadata. For JPEG images, we also reduce quality and color samples if they are higher than necessary." Great. Except that that information might be deliberately a part of the image. These things should be opt-in.

freehunter 10y ago
I would love it if all AMP sites were opt-in. I understand the target audience and I agree that making the web a faster place is important. However, there are tradeoffs that come with AMP, and I personally have an amazingly fast and unlimited LTE connection. I don't need AMP, so all I get is the downsides with none of the positives. The mobile Internet has become a far more frustrating place for me since Google introduced AMP. I just want to be able to turn it off.
mathw 10y ago
They are. You don't have to publish an AMP version.
- rch 10y ago
  That's what I thought as well. If you're publishing special images and JS then don't include AMP metadata. Some of the concerns really should be addressed though: a clickable and copyable link could be handled with a widget at the bottom of the page, for instance.
- pmlnr 10y ago
  > You don't have to publish an AMP version. For now. I do have a bad feeling that Google will keep pushing towards this.
- fragmede 10y ago
  Except with Google's stranglehold on Google Search Engine results, not publishing an AMP version means you will probably rank below a similiar AMP-"enhanced" version from a competitor. That's not really an option, unless you're trying to go after the Bing/DuckDuckGo market.
- MBCook 10y ago
  What about me as a user? I have NO WAY to control it, I just get it shoved down my throat. I don't like it and don't want it, but get no choice in the matter.
- angry-hacker 10y ago
  And no one is forcing you to work, don't ever whine about your salary. It's voluntary agreement. Google own the web and people have no choice. Monopoly.

by pmlnr 10y ago

freehunter 10y ago

I would love it if all AMP sites were opt-in. I understand the target audience and I agree that making the web a faster place is important. However, there are tradeoffs that come with AMP, and I personally have an amazingly fast and unlimited LTE connection. I don't need AMP, so all I get is the downsides with none of the positives. The mobile Internet has become a far more frustrating place for me since Google introduced AMP. I just want to be able to turn it off.

mathw 10y ago

They are. You don't have to publish an AMP version.

rch 10y ago
That's what I thought as well. If you're publishing special images and JS then don't include AMP metadata. Some of the concerns really should be addressed though: a clickable and copyable link could be handled with a widget at the bottom of the page, for instance.
pmlnr 10y ago
> You don't have to publish an AMP version. For now. I do have a bad feeling that Google will keep pushing towards this.
fragmede 10y ago
Except with Google's stranglehold on Google Search Engine results, not publishing an AMP version means you will probably rank below a similiar AMP-"enhanced" version from a competitor. That's not really an option, unless you're trying to go after the Bing/DuckDuckGo market.
MBCook 10y ago
What about me as a user? I have NO WAY to control it, I just get it shoved down my throat. I don't like it and don't want it, but get no choice in the matter.
angry-hacker 10y ago
And no one is forcing you to work, don't ever whine about your salary. It's voluntary agreement. Google own the web and people have no choice. Monopoly.