5 ms·

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

by jshen 10y ago

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, "I read it in Facebook" Which leads to the question, why is google doing this? They, you, could easily promote AMP pages while not masking the real URL! The answer is simple, profits over what's best for users. Edit: I just did a search to find the CNN interview I mentioned, copied the URL to share here, and look it's a google URL. WHY? https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/trump-voter-fraud-facebook-cnn-2016-12?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/trump-v...

paradite 10y ago
Ah I didn't know this. I run a WordPress blog. From the documentations of Google and WordPress AMP plugins, I have always thought that the user will be directed to "originalurl/amp" on my domain when they click on the Google link on their phone. Now that I see it's a Google domain, this is really weird.
- jshen 10y ago
  It's not an AMP thing per se, it's how Google handles AMP in search results.
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    No, its explicitly an AMP thing. Google serves the user a cached version of your page directly from its servers, hence the google.com/amp/ url
    - jshen 10y ago
      True, but you can serve the AMP page directly from the host.
    - blntechie 10y ago
      No, it's not. See Nuzzel's implementation of AMP, it opens the AMP version on the host.
agentS 10y ago
> 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 Cloudflare[1]. [0]: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/spec/amp-cache-guidelines.md https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/spec/amp-c... [1]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/accelerated-mobile/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/accelerated-mobile/
- jshen 10y ago
  Most major sites use a CDN already. It's really to keep users within google.
- lllr_finger 10y ago
  The AMP CDN doesn't even really help with caching - when I implemented AMP at launch for some large sites, it was strongly implied that we couldn't expect any reduction in calls to our servers, and we didn't notice any reduction when AMP went live. From my perspective it appeared to be a walled garden counter-measure to FB Instant Articles and Apple News.
tehlike 10y ago
i am curious about the numbers, though i do not know internally or externally if there are numbers showing this. As a power android user, i kind of like the rss-reader-esque look and feel of the amp links. It also opens blazing fast. With these in mind, minor inconveniences (like the address bar) are probably something i wouldn't mind.
- sah2ed 10y ago
  > It also opens blazing fast. With these in mind, minor inconveniences (like the address bar) are probably something i wouldn't mind. Of course you wouldn't mind, since, as you've said elsewhere that you work at Google. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair
  - tehlike 10y ago
    Eh - that is because you don't know me. I have been a very vocal critic of many google products and product shutdowns. edit: typo
- addicted 10y ago
  If only Google had a nice RSS Reader view which was blazing fast, and allowed you to view an uncluttered, non JS version of an article, while still correctly attributing it to the original provider, while making it easy to link to the original source. Such really simple syndication technology could even have a catch TLA. I can't really think of one, but I'm sure there is something.
  - tehlike 10y ago
    we had that, it was google reader. rest in peace - i used it a lot back in the day. That said, i think people disable JS in general for this reason.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  Your opinion is here is valid, but how would you address the criticism that this isn't solving the real issue, and is obviously a power-grab?
Twirrim 10y ago
I've seen people say about "fake news" articles that have google.com as the top domain (because AMP) as an indicator of some reliability. Google is unintentionally, but actively, harming their image by being associated with and promoting such content.
- mack73 10y ago
  Fake news make little harm to Google, like an atomic bomb fired into the sun. Google supporting fake news, intentionally and actively, does marvelous things for that piece of misinformation and it gives credit to the publisher. I hope this AMP experiment is soon over. As someone already said here, the web is confusing as it is. Google used to want to make things clearer, better. AMP is not. It's fixing symptoms instead of causes.
quickben 10y ago
>Which leads to the question, why is google doing this? Money. Amp vs adblockers
pdkl95 10y ago
> 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. Well, that explains why they wanted Chrome to hide URLs[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7693995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7693995
- Andrex 10y ago
  The Chrome experiment in question ended before AMP was even a thought, and AMP and Chrome are separate teams inside Google. I doubt they're even mildly related.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > separate teams Different teams inside a business can have coordinated long-term goals. Regardless, their master plan[1] clearly shows "Redesign HTTP", "Browser", and "Next generation web (Fish Pod)" as precursors that lead to "Private Internet", "Walled Garden", "need more cache", and "NEWSBANK". [1] http://undergoogle.com/tools/GoogleMasterPlan.html http://undergoogle.com/tools/GoogleMasterPlan.html
wheelerwj 10y ago
Because that's where the site you are viewing is located... Do you really want to go down the rabit hole of a browser displaying a different url than what you are viewing?
- jshen 10y ago
  Not really, the page is located on slate.com, that's the canonical location, and google is adding a secondary location that is confusing and adds very little benefit. AMP provides a lot of benefits that do not depend on google hosting the page in addition to the canonical location.
mysterydip 10y ago
I'm one of those frustrated mobile users. I like to think I keep up on tech trends (being here for one example) but I hadn't heard of AMP before. I have experienced it, though, without knowing what the issue was until now. I like to share news with friends, and recently more frequently when I try to send the url it was google instead of the domain I expected. I had to go out of my way to send them the actual source, but it didn't happen everywhere. Now I know why.

by jshen 10y ago

paradite 10y ago

Ah I didn't know this. I run a WordPress blog. From the documentations of Google and WordPress AMP plugins, I have always thought that the user will be directed to "originalurl/amp" on my domain when they click on the Google link on their phone. Now that I see it's a Google domain, this is really weird.

jshen 10y ago
It's not an AMP thing per se, it's how Google handles AMP in search results.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  No, its explicitly an AMP thing. Google serves the user a cached version of your page directly from its servers, hence the google.com/amp/ url
  - jshen 10y ago
    True, but you can serve the AMP page directly from the host.
  - blntechie 10y ago
    No, it's not. See Nuzzel's implementation of AMP, it opens the AMP version on the host.

agentS 10y ago

> 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 Cloudflare[1]. [0]: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/spec/amp-cache-guidelines.md https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/spec/amp-c... [1]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/accelerated-mobile/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/accelerated-mobile/

jshen 10y ago
Most major sites use a CDN already. It's really to keep users within google.
lllr_finger 10y ago
The AMP CDN doesn't even really help with caching - when I implemented AMP at launch for some large sites, it was strongly implied that we couldn't expect any reduction in calls to our servers, and we didn't notice any reduction when AMP went live. From my perspective it appeared to be a walled garden counter-measure to FB Instant Articles and Apple News.

tehlike 10y ago

i am curious about the numbers, though i do not know internally or externally if there are numbers showing this. As a power android user, i kind of like the rss-reader-esque look and feel of the amp links. It also opens blazing fast. With these in mind, minor inconveniences (like the address bar) are probably something i wouldn't mind.

sah2ed 10y ago
> It also opens blazing fast. With these in mind, minor inconveniences (like the address bar) are probably something i wouldn't mind. Of course you wouldn't mind, since, as you've said elsewhere that you work at Google. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" — Upton Sinclair
- tehlike 10y ago
  Eh - that is because you don't know me. I have been a very vocal critic of many google products and product shutdowns. edit: typo
addicted 10y ago
If only Google had a nice RSS Reader view which was blazing fast, and allowed you to view an uncluttered, non JS version of an article, while still correctly attributing it to the original provider, while making it easy to link to the original source. Such really simple syndication technology could even have a catch TLA. I can't really think of one, but I'm sure there is something.
- tehlike 10y ago
  we had that, it was google reader. rest in peace - i used it a lot back in the day. That said, i think people disable JS in general for this reason.
CaptSpify 10y ago
Your opinion is here is valid, but how would you address the criticism that this isn't solving the real issue, and is obviously a power-grab?

Twirrim 10y ago

I've seen people say about "fake news" articles that have google.com as the top domain (because AMP) as an indicator of some reliability. Google is unintentionally, but actively, harming their image by being associated with and promoting such content.

mack73 10y ago
Fake news make little harm to Google, like an atomic bomb fired into the sun. Google supporting fake news, intentionally and actively, does marvelous things for that piece of misinformation and it gives credit to the publisher. I hope this AMP experiment is soon over. As someone already said here, the web is confusing as it is. Google used to want to make things clearer, better. AMP is not. It's fixing symptoms instead of causes.

quickben 10y ago

>Which leads to the question, why is google doing this? Money. Amp vs adblockers

pdkl95 10y ago

> 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. Well, that explains why they wanted Chrome to hide URLs[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7693995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7693995

Andrex 10y ago
The Chrome experiment in question ended before AMP was even a thought, and AMP and Chrome are separate teams inside Google. I doubt they're even mildly related.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > separate teams Different teams inside a business can have coordinated long-term goals. Regardless, their master plan[1] clearly shows "Redesign HTTP", "Browser", and "Next generation web (Fish Pod)" as precursors that lead to "Private Internet", "Walled Garden", "need more cache", and "NEWSBANK". [1] http://undergoogle.com/tools/GoogleMasterPlan.html http://undergoogle.com/tools/GoogleMasterPlan.html

wheelerwj 10y ago

Because that's where the site you are viewing is located... Do you really want to go down the rabit hole of a browser displaying a different url than what you are viewing?

jshen 10y ago
Not really, the page is located on slate.com, that's the canonical location, and google is adding a secondary location that is confusing and adds very little benefit. AMP provides a lot of benefits that do not depend on google hosting the page in addition to the canonical location.

mysterydip 10y ago

I'm one of those frustrated mobile users. I like to think I keep up on tech trends (being here for one example) but I hadn't heard of AMP before. I have experienced it, though, without knowing what the issue was until now. I like to share news with friends, and recently more frequently when I try to send the url it was google instead of the domain I expected. I had to go out of my way to send them the actual source, but it didn't happen everywhere. Now I know why.