8 ms·

Google is abusing its powers. The search rank is our currency and Google has pushed AMP sites to the top for some while. So, everybody is now building weird AMP

Google is abusing its powers. The search rank is our currency and Google has pushed AMP sites to the top for some while. So, everybody is now building weird AMP layers for their sites. We went from a free to a proprietary mobile web in just a few weeks. And we can't do anything. It feels like the times when the Internet Explorer tried to rule except that more people were complaining. The open solution to a faster mobile web would have been so easy: Just penalize large and slow web pages without defining a dedicated mobile specification. That's it. This wasn't done in the past, slow pages outperformed fast ones on the SERPs because of some weird Google voodoo ranking, heck sometimes even desktop sites outperformed responsive ones on smartphones. If they had just tweaked these odd ranking rules in way that speed and size got more impact on the overall ranking there wouldn't have been any reason for AMP—the market would have regulated itself. I'm wondering who at Google is responsible for AMP. Who created AMP's random specs (no external CSS but external fonts files, preference for four selected font providers, no JS but their JS, probable ranking preference of Google cached AMP sites, etc.). Why did they decide on the spec themselves and not as a part of an industry group? Again why didn't they just tweaked their ranking algorithm and btw, they could have also made Android's Chrome faster, it's still significantly slower than iOS' Safari. I'd be happy if this person could comment on the abuse of power (Sundar Pichai?).

wheelerwj 10y ago
> Google is abusing its powers. They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take back our internet. Edit, i love the downvotes for this. Google is legally required to act in their shareholders best interests. You all should understand fiduciary duty. They are building long term value for a massive (and growing) customer segment at the expense of a relatively small base of idealist tech users. Its morally reprehensible but still the correct decision in today's business climate.
- joelthelion 10y ago
  > They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Violating anti-trust laws?
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    I'm no google fanboy, but they haven't been convicted of violating any antitrust laws here in the US. Edit: Again with downvotes. Have I made an inaccurate statement?
    - Fnoord 10y ago
      FYI: Although I suppose everyone every once in a while is surprised about the way their posts are moderated on HN and other websites (if they notice, that is) it is annoying when people complain about downvoting. I just automatically downvote that. Sometimes what you state just isn't popular for the crowd who reads it and/or moderates it. Doesn't mean you are right or wrong. Just take a deep breath and give it a rest. EDIT: The guidelines say: "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html hence, nope, I won't change that unless someone who works for HN directs me to.
      - wheelerwj 10y ago
        > I just automatically downvote that. We can both agree that one of us needs to change. The guidelines are fine, the part you should change is automatically downvoting anything. Just jumping on a bandwagon makes for pretty boring reading too.
        NTripleOne 10y ago
        hint: it's you
    - coldtea 10y ago
      You don't have to be convicted to be violating, because: 1) Not all violators will necessarily be convicted. 2) Even for those eventually convicted, there's always a period when they are violating, but not yet convicted.
      - 10y ago
- nothrabannosir 10y ago
  You're right, but that point isn't relevant. What you're giving is an explanation, not an excuse. Nobody is incredulous at Google's motivations (money). We're just not satisfied with it. Before you can solve a problem, you must identify it clearly. That's what we're doing here. Saying "yeah but it's only logical" isn't the point. Look: > It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take back our internet. You mean, like discussing why AMP is bad and why we shouldn't use it?
  - wheelerwj 10y ago
    No, everyone on here shouldn't need explanation on why amp is bad. Especially when its a closed system that Google insists serving to your customers from Google's private servers. No technologist or business person would/should ever stand for that. Yet we are forced to. The discussion should really be, how do we dislodge Google from its current entrenched position.
    - dajohnson89 10y ago
      Uh, use a different search engine? Am I missing something?
      - RodericDay 10y ago
        Yeah, a whole host of technical and legal methods that go beyond an incredibly hard collective-action problem.
  - sametmax 10y ago
    But we don't need an excuse. However the explanation seems necessary given that: - we saw it happen once; - we said it would happened again; - we said how; - we said why; - and it happened again. And apparently nobody gives a damn. People are still trying to get short term gains by adapting to Google's will and wrecking our industry, efficiently sawing the branch we are all seating on. So yeah, we need to give the explanation. Again. And again. Until people hear it. We are responsible of the situation. Not Google. Before Google there was others like MS, and after they will be others. It's like a disease. You don't blame diseases, it's very useless, you explain, and you act. Yes, your site will not make as much money. But for God sake, it's the same rational for green energy, criminal prevention and the like. You pay NOW because you understand that it's necessary on the long run.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. There was such a thing as ethical and societal responsibility for businesses. Thinking making profit by any means as long as they are nominally legal is acceptable for a company is just something some people believe. No natural law that says it has to be so -- we could easily (and have had) believe the opposite.
  - dajohnson89 10y ago
    >There was such a thing as ethical and societal responsibility for businesses. Since when? Standard oil? Or going back further, the Dutch East India Company?
    - unethical_ban 10y ago
      Corporate social responsibility want a thing on the silk road, but we expect it now.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      Since the time companies started being held accountable. Which goes back all the way to ancient Babylon in some form or another. There are countless instances in history of shady businessmen being taken to trial or punished by an angry mob. (And the "Dutch East India Company" was accountable to its society -- and even nationalized at some point. It just exploited OTHER societies and countries).
      - dajohnson89 10y ago
        And "Google" was accountable to its shareholders -- and even made public at some point. It just exploited OTHER parts of society. See?
- 27182818284 10y ago
  Fiduciary duty it isn't a magic spell that shareholders cast and then the company does everything all the time to squeeze profit out of everything. Lots of Google services are still free (as in price)
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    No, they are adware. Or "get monitored and profiled".
- a_imho 10y ago
  Criticizing Google too strongly e.g. kill google is a surefire way to get downvotes. Which is pretty much the same logic you described. HN is frequented by googlers, even if it is not exactly a duty to downvote comments like yours, it makes some sense. Or maybe I'm just seeing things.
- colordrops 10y ago
  > required to act in their shareholders best interests This is an extremely vague requirement. Potentially killing their brand name among developers and potentially initiating a slow long decline into irrelevancy certainly counts as not acting in their shareholders' best interests. When google first started, their "don't be evil" mantra was one of the main reasons they succeeded, so not doing unethical shit is in their shareholders' best interests.
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    No, making more money is, and shareholders tend to think in short term gains.
    - colordrops 10y ago
      Are only short term gains in shareholders' best interests? Is there a legal definition? I'm asking genuinely.
      - manigandham 10y ago
        No, they are not. This is a common misconception. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...
  - nebabyte 10y ago
    > Potentially killing their brand name among developers and potentially initiating a slow long decline into irrelevancy certainly counts as not acting in their shareholders' best interests. When google first started, their "don't be evil" mantra was one of the main reasons they succeeded He's right in that they're a company, but not that the solution to this problem is to "kill Google." Much easier and truer to the problem is to "kill" this expectation people have that the magic of good-natured leadership will create companies that dutifully remain bound to arbitrary constraints as "don't be evil" or "not doing unethical shit". It's just blissful daydreaming. Much better would be to collectively gravitate around community alternatives. You have most of the tools in front of you (open-source, remember?), but you decide that Google's 'already won' and think of yourself as reliant upon them (thus complaining when they don't do things your way).
- ksk 10y ago
  >Its morally reprehensible but still the correct decision in today's business climate. Using your logic if slavery were to become legal again, businesses should rush to use the free labor because "fiduciary duty". This is why they teach business ethics.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    Why do you think companies rush to use H1B visas and offshore to countries that use (what amounts to) slave labor? Yes, companies do this today. Business ethics counts for nothing if it's not mandated. Compare Walmart's revenue to Whole Foods and you'll see why.
    - ksk 10y ago
      I don't quite understand how you're putting a moral judgement on outsourcing which is simply the purchase of a service. Certainly if a specific company is using slave or even child labor that is terrible and they should be boycotted. There have been several cases of business suffering real consequences. I am sure that they have not escaped your attention. Anyway, its wrong to say business ethics account for nothing. Companies can and do self-regulate. e.g. http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-023.pdf http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-023.pdf
      - freehunter 10y ago
        Where did I put a moral judgment on all outsourcing? I put a moral judgement on outsourcing to countries that use slave labor, obviously in the context of using slave labor (which is the subject of the thread I'm replying to). That was entirely clear from my comment, and you deliberately chose to ignore that. I will not apologize or make corrections.
        ksk 10y ago
        Well, I took your comment charitably and addressed the point about individual companies employing abhorrent practices (whether it be labor or otherwise). Obviously, we're not in favor of that. But your claim seems to be that an entire technological sector spanning multiple countries employs slave labor? Its hard to take you seriously at this point.
- geofft 10y ago
  > You all should understand fiduciary duty. We do. You should understand it. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor... The interpretation of "fiduciary duty" / "they are a business" that you're implying is an urban legend, easily debunked by the fact that Google has no fiduciary duty to open a gas station in rural North Dakota as soon as they realize from Google Maps data that one would be profitable.
- manigandham 10y ago
  You should understand fiduciary duty vs corporate director responsibility. Best interest != monetary gain. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...
nailer 10y ago
> I'm wondering who at Google is responsible for AMP. Who created AMP's random specs (no external CSS but external fonts files, preference for four selected font providers, no JS but their JS, probable ranking preference of Google cached AMP sites, etc.). A bunch of people, but Malte Ubl is one of the main people and has the best tech talks on why they picked the techniques and hacks they did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfekj564rs0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfekj564rs0 I'd recommend watching that for how it works than asking @amphtml questions. Node people: I did a node specific presentation at LNUG you might like: https://mikemaccana.github.io/quick-wins-with-node-and-amp/#1 https://mikemaccana.github.io/quick-wins-with-node-and-amp/#... I use AMP on CertSimple but appreciate that AMP favors 'speed achieved using specific techniques' rather than speed per se. There's the RealPolitik element where we as site owners have to do what Google say.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >I use AMP on CertSimple but appreciate that AMP favors 'speed achieved using specific techniques' rather than speed per se. Why on god's name anybody would appreciate that?
  - lambada 10y ago
    I believe the poster means appreciate as in 'I recognise that' or 'I understand that' rather than 'I approve of'.
    - nailer 10y ago
      Yes.
mike-cardwell 10y ago
If "you" use Chrome, then Amp is your fault. You gave an advertising company control of the Web.
- driverdan 10y ago
  AMP and Chrome are two completely independent things.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    Controlled by the same company to further the same goal.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  More like "if you use Google". Sadly, nobody has built just as good alternative search engine. Or as nice webmail. Generally, Google has huge resources to spend at making their search and their advertising platform outperform others, and they haven't degenerated enough to allow a swift moving company to disrupt their market.
nrjdhsbsid 10y ago
The crazy thing is that AMP is open source and this is still happening. I've been tracking their GitHub and what is happening is that while yes, the source is open, they won't let you add anything they don't like. Oh, and if you try to fork AMP you fail the official validators and suddenly your site isn't AMP anymore. What is happening in this case is that open source is doing nothing to stop AMP from being proprietary because it's worthless unless you have the "blessed" version. Take for example the most obvious change, to make the original URL visible in the banner. There's tens maybe hundreds of GitHub issues on this and it's still languishing. In the rare case anyone official replies it's some bs about how it will affect the user experience or "interfere with Google's cache" in some roundabout and unspecified way. They leave a few of these issues open so that whenever you start another they can close it as a duplicate. Otherwise their repo would be overrun with them. Open source doesn't matter if someone holds the keys to the kingdom and "validates" your sources. A dark pattern indeed. AMP in its current form is certainly evil. The only way that could be changed is if Google opens up the ability to cache the page by a different provider with different validators. I smell antitrust
- pawadu 10y ago
  > I've been tracking their GitHub and what is happening is that while yes, the source is open, they won't let you add anything they don't like. Well, thats basically how Android works. And with the upcoming policy changes (in CDD and GCM) things will get even worse.
  - sjilo 10y ago
    Could you tell me about those changes?
    - pawadu 10y ago
      I am under NDA so I cant give you specifics but the general theme of the changes are: less power to manufacturers, more to carriers.
      - 10y ago
ronjouch 10y ago
> "The open solution to a faster mobile web would have been so easy: just penalize large and slow web pages, without defining a dedicated mobile specification." A million times yes. As to why this didn't happen, I feel it would have been too restricted to "merely solving the problem", and not active enough on pushing Google's agenda to tighten its control on the web. All other things being equal, option A being "efficient & neutral" (just penalize slow pages) is, as a business, inferior to option B "more convoluted but with potentially profitable side-effects" (AMP). Other takes? EDIT I should have better read the linked article before posting this, what I'm writing here is close to what the article "Lock In" section says.
usernam 10y ago
> The open solution to a faster mobile web would have been so easy: Just penalize large and slow web pages without defining a dedicated mobile specification It's obvious they have a different view on this. You can see this first-hand on their pagespeed tool. Pagespeed ranks your pages mostly according to random features, irregardless of size and performance. Actual test you can perform: 1kb web page with no compression ranks lower than 1mb web page after compression: "because you should enable server-side compression". Their mobile assessment tool is similarly a joke. The sad thing is that I'm likely getting a lower ranking on my website with has 5kb vanilla uncompressed js (gasp, not even async!) compared to the glittered rating of a 5mb homepage which loads 5mb+ more excluding webfonts from external CDNs. You can taste that this has spread into google monoculture by the performance of their own web services.
- freehunter 10y ago
  >You can taste that this has spread into google monoculture by the performance of their own web services. I gave up on Google Maps a long time ago. On my desktop or laptop, it loads in chunks. Like, the map loads, then the search bar loads, then the navigation (zoom tools, etc) loads. When I click and drag, many times I end up selecting the page instead of moving the map because it hasn't finished loading. I use Bing Maps on desktop and Apple Maps on mobile, only using Google Maps when I need to verify an address is the right place or find a company's hours, since their data is better than their competitors. But man their performance is worse. Way worse.
  - sly010 10y ago
    They have a "google maps lite version" that loads a little faster, because it misses a bunch us useless crap, but looks 90% the same. It feels somewhat faster.
    - stolsvik 10y ago
      Link?
- nebabyte 10y ago

wheelerwj 10y ago

> Google is abusing its powers. They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take back our internet. Edit, i love the downvotes for this. Google is legally required to act in their shareholders best interests. You all should understand fiduciary duty. They are building long term value for a massive (and growing) customer segment at the expense of a relatively small base of idealist tech users. Its morally reprehensible but still the correct decision in today's business climate.

joelthelion 10y ago
> They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. Violating anti-trust laws?
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  I'm no google fanboy, but they haven't been convicted of violating any antitrust laws here in the US. Edit: Again with downvotes. Have I made an inaccurate statement?
  - Fnoord 10y ago
    FYI: Although I suppose everyone every once in a while is surprised about the way their posts are moderated on HN and other websites (if they notice, that is) it is annoying when people complain about downvoting. I just automatically downvote that. Sometimes what you state just isn't popular for the crowd who reads it and/or moderates it. Doesn't mean you are right or wrong. Just take a deep breath and give it a rest. EDIT: The guidelines say: "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html hence, nope, I won't change that unless someone who works for HN directs me to.
    - wheelerwj 10y ago
      > I just automatically downvote that. We can both agree that one of us needs to change. The guidelines are fine, the part you should change is automatically downvoting anything. Just jumping on a bandwagon makes for pretty boring reading too.
      - NTripleOne 10y ago
        hint: it's you
  - coldtea 10y ago
    You don't have to be convicted to be violating, because: 1) Not all violators will necessarily be convicted. 2) Even for those eventually convicted, there's always a period when they are violating, but not yet convicted.
    - 10y ago
nothrabannosir 10y ago
You're right, but that point isn't relevant. What you're giving is an explanation, not an excuse. Nobody is incredulous at Google's motivations (money). We're just not satisfied with it. Before you can solve a problem, you must identify it clearly. That's what we're doing here. Saying "yeah but it's only logical" isn't the point. Look: > It's up to us to find a way to kill google and take back our internet. You mean, like discussing why AMP is bad and why we shouldn't use it?
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  No, everyone on here shouldn't need explanation on why amp is bad. Especially when its a closed system that Google insists serving to your customers from Google's private servers. No technologist or business person would/should ever stand for that. Yet we are forced to. The discussion should really be, how do we dislodge Google from its current entrenched position.
  - dajohnson89 10y ago
    Uh, use a different search engine? Am I missing something?
    - RodericDay 10y ago
      Yeah, a whole host of technical and legal methods that go beyond an incredibly hard collective-action problem.
- sametmax 10y ago
  But we don't need an excuse. However the explanation seems necessary given that: - we saw it happen once; - we said it would happened again; - we said how; - we said why; - and it happened again. And apparently nobody gives a damn. People are still trying to get short term gains by adapting to Google's will and wrecking our industry, efficiently sawing the branch we are all seating on. So yeah, we need to give the explanation. Again. And again. Until people hear it. We are responsible of the situation. Not Google. Before Google there was others like MS, and after they will be others. It's like a disease. You don't blame diseases, it's very useless, you explain, and you act. Yes, your site will not make as much money. But for God sake, it's the same rational for green energy, criminal prevention and the like. You pay NOW because you understand that it's necessary on the long run.
coldtea 10y ago
>They are a business, doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. There was such a thing as ethical and societal responsibility for businesses. Thinking making profit by any means as long as they are nominally legal is acceptable for a company is just something some people believe. No natural law that says it has to be so -- we could easily (and have had) believe the opposite.
- dajohnson89 10y ago
  >There was such a thing as ethical and societal responsibility for businesses. Since when? Standard oil? Or going back further, the Dutch East India Company?
  - unethical_ban 10y ago
    Corporate social responsibility want a thing on the silk road, but we expect it now.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Since the time companies started being held accountable. Which goes back all the way to ancient Babylon in some form or another. There are countless instances in history of shady businessmen being taken to trial or punished by an angry mob. (And the "Dutch East India Company" was accountable to its society -- and even nationalized at some point. It just exploited OTHER societies and countries).
    - dajohnson89 10y ago
      And "Google" was accountable to its shareholders -- and even made public at some point. It just exploited OTHER parts of society. See?
27182818284 10y ago
Fiduciary duty it isn't a magic spell that shareholders cast and then the company does everything all the time to squeeze profit out of everything. Lots of Google services are still free (as in price)
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  No, they are adware. Or "get monitored and profiled".
a_imho 10y ago
Criticizing Google too strongly e.g. kill google is a surefire way to get downvotes. Which is pretty much the same logic you described. HN is frequented by googlers, even if it is not exactly a duty to downvote comments like yours, it makes some sense. Or maybe I'm just seeing things.
colordrops 10y ago
> required to act in their shareholders best interests This is an extremely vague requirement. Potentially killing their brand name among developers and potentially initiating a slow long decline into irrelevancy certainly counts as not acting in their shareholders' best interests. When google first started, their "don't be evil" mantra was one of the main reasons they succeeded, so not doing unethical shit is in their shareholders' best interests.
- AstralStorm 10y ago
  No, making more money is, and shareholders tend to think in short term gains.
  - colordrops 10y ago
    Are only short term gains in shareholders' best interests? Is there a legal definition? I'm asking genuinely.
    - manigandham 10y ago
      No, they are not. This is a common misconception. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...
- nebabyte 10y ago
  > Potentially killing their brand name among developers and potentially initiating a slow long decline into irrelevancy certainly counts as not acting in their shareholders' best interests. When google first started, their "don't be evil" mantra was one of the main reasons they succeeded He's right in that they're a company, but not that the solution to this problem is to "kill Google." Much easier and truer to the problem is to "kill" this expectation people have that the magic of good-natured leadership will create companies that dutifully remain bound to arbitrary constraints as "don't be evil" or "not doing unethical shit". It's just blissful daydreaming. Much better would be to collectively gravitate around community alternatives. You have most of the tools in front of you (open-source, remember?), but you decide that Google's 'already won' and think of yourself as reliant upon them (thus complaining when they don't do things your way).
ksk 10y ago
>Its morally reprehensible but still the correct decision in today's business climate. Using your logic if slavery were to become legal again, businesses should rush to use the free labor because "fiduciary duty". This is why they teach business ethics.
- freehunter 10y ago
  Why do you think companies rush to use H1B visas and offshore to countries that use (what amounts to) slave labor? Yes, companies do this today. Business ethics counts for nothing if it's not mandated. Compare Walmart's revenue to Whole Foods and you'll see why.
  - ksk 10y ago
    I don't quite understand how you're putting a moral judgement on outsourcing which is simply the purchase of a service. Certainly if a specific company is using slave or even child labor that is terrible and they should be boycotted. There have been several cases of business suffering real consequences. I am sure that they have not escaped your attention. Anyway, its wrong to say business ethics account for nothing. Companies can and do self-regulate. e.g. http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-023.pdf http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-023.pdf
    - freehunter 10y ago
      Where did I put a moral judgment on all outsourcing? I put a moral judgement on outsourcing to countries that use slave labor, obviously in the context of using slave labor (which is the subject of the thread I'm replying to). That was entirely clear from my comment, and you deliberately chose to ignore that. I will not apologize or make corrections.
      - ksk 10y ago
        Well, I took your comment charitably and addressed the point about individual companies employing abhorrent practices (whether it be labor or otherwise). Obviously, we're not in favor of that. But your claim seems to be that an entire technological sector spanning multiple countries employs slave labor? Its hard to take you seriously at this point.
geofft 10y ago
> You all should understand fiduciary duty. We do. You should understand it. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor... The interpretation of "fiduciary duty" / "they are a business" that you're implying is an urban legend, easily debunked by the fact that Google has no fiduciary duty to open a gas station in rural North Dakota as soon as they realize from Google Maps data that one would be profitable.
manigandham 10y ago
You should understand fiduciary duty vs corporate director responsibility. Best interest != monetary gain. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...

nailer 10y ago

> I'm wondering who at Google is responsible for AMP. Who created AMP's random specs (no external CSS but external fonts files, preference for four selected font providers, no JS but their JS, probable ranking preference of Google cached AMP sites, etc.). A bunch of people, but Malte Ubl is one of the main people and has the best tech talks on why they picked the techniques and hacks they did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfekj564rs0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfekj564rs0 I'd recommend watching that for how it works than asking @amphtml questions. Node people: I did a node specific presentation at LNUG you might like: https://mikemaccana.github.io/quick-wins-with-node-and-amp/#1 https://mikemaccana.github.io/quick-wins-with-node-and-amp/#... I use AMP on CertSimple but appreciate that AMP favors 'speed achieved using specific techniques' rather than speed per se. There's the RealPolitik element where we as site owners have to do what Google say.

coldtea 10y ago
>I use AMP on CertSimple but appreciate that AMP favors 'speed achieved using specific techniques' rather than speed per se. Why on god's name anybody would appreciate that?
- lambada 10y ago
  I believe the poster means appreciate as in 'I recognise that' or 'I understand that' rather than 'I approve of'.
  - nailer 10y ago
    Yes.

mike-cardwell 10y ago

If "you" use Chrome, then Amp is your fault. You gave an advertising company control of the Web.

driverdan 10y ago
AMP and Chrome are two completely independent things.
- freehunter 10y ago
  Controlled by the same company to further the same goal.
AstralStorm 10y ago
More like "if you use Google". Sadly, nobody has built just as good alternative search engine. Or as nice webmail. Generally, Google has huge resources to spend at making their search and their advertising platform outperform others, and they haven't degenerated enough to allow a swift moving company to disrupt their market.

nrjdhsbsid 10y ago

The crazy thing is that AMP is open source and this is still happening. I've been tracking their GitHub and what is happening is that while yes, the source is open, they won't let you add anything they don't like. Oh, and if you try to fork AMP you fail the official validators and suddenly your site isn't AMP anymore. What is happening in this case is that open source is doing nothing to stop AMP from being proprietary because it's worthless unless you have the "blessed" version. Take for example the most obvious change, to make the original URL visible in the banner. There's tens maybe hundreds of GitHub issues on this and it's still languishing. In the rare case anyone official replies it's some bs about how it will affect the user experience or "interfere with Google's cache" in some roundabout and unspecified way. They leave a few of these issues open so that whenever you start another they can close it as a duplicate. Otherwise their repo would be overrun with them. Open source doesn't matter if someone holds the keys to the kingdom and "validates" your sources. A dark pattern indeed. AMP in its current form is certainly evil. The only way that could be changed is if Google opens up the ability to cache the page by a different provider with different validators. I smell antitrust

pawadu 10y ago
> I've been tracking their GitHub and what is happening is that while yes, the source is open, they won't let you add anything they don't like. Well, thats basically how Android works. And with the upcoming policy changes (in CDD and GCM) things will get even worse.
- sjilo 10y ago
  Could you tell me about those changes?
  - pawadu 10y ago
    I am under NDA so I cant give you specifics but the general theme of the changes are: less power to manufacturers, more to carriers.
    - 10y ago

ronjouch 10y ago

> "The open solution to a faster mobile web would have been so easy: just penalize large and slow web pages, without defining a dedicated mobile specification." A million times yes. As to why this didn't happen, I feel it would have been too restricted to "merely solving the problem", and not active enough on pushing Google's agenda to tighten its control on the web. All other things being equal, option A being "efficient & neutral" (just penalize slow pages) is, as a business, inferior to option B "more convoluted but with potentially profitable side-effects" (AMP). Other takes? EDIT I should have better read the linked article before posting this, what I'm writing here is close to what the article "Lock In" section says.

usernam 10y ago

> The open solution to a faster mobile web would have been so easy: Just penalize large and slow web pages without defining a dedicated mobile specification It's obvious they have a different view on this. You can see this first-hand on their pagespeed tool. Pagespeed ranks your pages mostly according to random features, irregardless of size and performance. Actual test you can perform: 1kb web page with no compression ranks lower than 1mb web page after compression: "because you should enable server-side compression". Their mobile assessment tool is similarly a joke. The sad thing is that I'm likely getting a lower ranking on my website with has 5kb vanilla uncompressed js (gasp, not even async!) compared to the glittered rating of a 5mb homepage which loads 5mb+ more excluding webfonts from external CDNs. You can taste that this has spread into google monoculture by the performance of their own web services.

freehunter 10y ago
>You can taste that this has spread into google monoculture by the performance of their own web services. I gave up on Google Maps a long time ago. On my desktop or laptop, it loads in chunks. Like, the map loads, then the search bar loads, then the navigation (zoom tools, etc) loads. When I click and drag, many times I end up selecting the page instead of moving the map because it hasn't finished loading. I use Bing Maps on desktop and Apple Maps on mobile, only using Google Maps when I need to verify an address is the right place or find a company's hours, since their data is better than their competitors. But man their performance is worse. Way worse.
- sly010 10y ago
  They have a "google maps lite version" that loads a little faster, because it misses a bunch us useless crap, but looks 90% the same. It feels somewhat faster.
  - stolsvik 10y ago
    Link?
nebabyte 10y ago