7 ms·

You present no real argument rather than calling it pure evil. It loads fast, ads and analytics go where they're supposed to, and now the URL issue is mostly go

You present no real argument rather than calling it pure evil. It loads fast, ads and analytics go where they're supposed to, and now the URL issue is mostly gone too. For users, it's basically seamless benefit with no draw backs. For developers, yes it takes effort but a lot of it is done for you, and you also inherit this huge cache, which you call evil but in reality, costs quite a lot of money and you're getting for free. It's easy to call something "evil" and completely dismiss all the huge benefits of a technology, but I'd like to hear what exactly are the remaining issue. The AMP team has done their best to one by one address anything that has come up.

tdkl 10y ago
Since when is Google the only ads and analytics provider everyone uses? Ooops, that's why AMP was made in the first place.
- ehsankia 10y ago
  Here's a list of analytics services they support with currently over 30 different ones: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-analytics#analytics-vendors https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ana... Similarly, here's a list of supported ad-networks with almost a 100: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad#supported-ad-networks https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad#... Far from being Google only.
  - andy_ppp 10y ago
    I'm looking to provide website integrations including analysis for publishers in a new way that AMP doesn't support. Embrace and extend really screws up my idea here.
  - elsewhen 10y ago
    The fact that there's a list means that some are not on it, which means that there is a gatekeeper. I think we need to pick our poison: an open web with a potentially degraded experience. Or speed-optimized but closed. I for one choose the former because it's precisely the openness that made/makes the web great, and to me that trumps speed and convenience.
    - shostack 10y ago
      This. What is the process to be added? Does Google have sole control to approve and revoke access to that list? Does it place an unreasonable burden on ad tech startups that might one day be viable competitors to Google's own offering? How much will it hinder FB and their attempts at rolling out a GDN competitor?
      - cramforce 10y ago
        8 pull requests for new ad networks were submitted and approved in the last week alone. I'd say the answer to your question is: no.
        shostack 10y ago
        While that is great to hear, that doesn't fully address the questions and concerns I raised.
        cramforce 10y ago
        Maybe it doesn't, but it is hard to give somebody who just shoots out rhetorical questions hard data on each one. I invite you to hangout on the open source project for a while and make your own impression.
        shostack 10y ago
        Do I recall correctly that you are a Googler working on AMP? Or am I mistaken? Regardless, the questions were hardly rhetorical--I'd really like to know, and the other responder answered some of the questions with answers that confirmed some of my concerns. Don't get me wrong...I think parts of what Google is doing here are solid and admirable. Publishers screwed the pooch and something had to give. But that doesn't mean Google gets a free pass on the strategic pieces of this they are clearly trying to set up and what they've done to date. The questions are valid and if you feel they are unwarranted concerns, I'd love to learn why you think the concerns are overrated.
tyingq 10y ago
Pure evil might be a bit much, but I do take issue with the behavior of the banner at the top. End users are accustomed to a banner at the top of sites, with an 'X' on them. Things like, for example, the "EU Cookie Notice". However, they are used to using the 'X' to get the irritating banner out of the way. In AMP land, clicking the X sends you back to Google. What are the chances this is what the user is expecting? Who benefits from this setup? Edit: Remember the DiggBar? https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/06/diggs-kevin-rose-diggbar-is-bad-for-the-internet-so-were-killing-it/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/06/diggs-kevin-rose-diggbar-i...
- cramforce 10y ago
  The X tested well with users, but we are reconsidering it, because of the feedback from the developer community!
  - tyingq 10y ago
    Appreciate you sharing that, good to hear it's under consideration. More cynical me might say that rolling out the 'X' with that behavior, though, gets the conversation to be about fixing the banner...versus removing it altogether.
    - wmf 10y ago
      Removing the bar is phishing and fake news paradise.
      - tyingq 10y ago
        Well, because the implementation uses google urls, right? I assume they could have asked users to create amp.theirdomain.com CNAME records and upload appropriate certificates, right? Or the solution that cloudflare is using, or?
        cramforce 10y ago
        There is no navigation (only pushState) to enable pre-rendering, so the origin cannot be changed.
ricardobeat 10y ago
None of the benefits come from the "evil" part. You could get the same from just enforcing validation, without routing everything through google CDN, cloaking URLs and breaking the UI.
jasonlingx 10y ago
These tricks have always been the bread and butter of spammers and scammers: Make users think they have clicked through to NYT when they are actually still on your site. Show NYT's content on your own site in an iframe.
- throwaway91111 10y ago
  Exactly. It's bad to teach users the URL isn't related to the content.
- ehsankia 10y ago
  Except NYT put their content there and has near full control of it. It's just hosted (and paid) by someone else. It's just like you using my server as a mirror. You can take it down or edit it at any time you want. So your example makes no sense. This is a mutually beneficial setup. Google provides fast servers all across the globe for free and includes it in the AMP carousel. There's value both ways, and user gets a much faster experience. Yes, there are a couple UX that are a bit rough, but looking at this change, it seems like they are actively working to improve it.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    We're talking from the perspective of the user, not the publisher having control. CDNs are not that expensive. There are already too many issues with people going to sites that are not what they claim, so further pushing cloaked URLs does not help.
manigandham 10y ago
The complete forking of HTML for primarily google search traffic will do more harm than good. HTML is already fast. Google could've used search rankings to factor in site speed and forced many sites to become much faster in a few months, instead of now requiring more resources to maintain an alternative version just for them. Also 90% of the ads on the web are served by Google's own Doubleclick for Publishers, one of the slowest ad servers available.
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  Yes! Ban slow ads you say? But we make money from that and it means we can extend the web for our purposes! Brilliant!
- lostboys67 10y ago
  yes good luck with that if you have had to work with any site on the internet it can be a Sisyphean task to get trivial changes made on many sites.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    Search rankings and the resulting traffic are a priority, changes would be made quickly. AMP pages were rolled out within weeks as well, but all that time and effort could've been spent on making the universal HTML page much better.
    - lostboys67 10y ago
      Lol you haven't worked with may real sites in the wild around 80% of the ones I have worked with need the CTO to tell the developers to pull their socks up or your all on a PIP
      - manigandham 10y ago
        What? What are "real sites"? I'm in the adtech industry and know execs and devs at all the top publishers. Revenue/traffic issues are at the top of the list. They don't sit around doing nothing all day. Regardless, resources are always constrained and working on AMP means not working on the standard (mobile) HTML version.
gcb0 10y ago
proof it is evil: a site that doesn't support amp but is as nimble/fast and have Datacenters with lower latency to their readers than google, will still be punished (on Google's serp) over a site that has a crap website but gave in onto amp.
- jakub_g 10y ago
  I think it might be that the technical team behind the AMP has good intentions but they are so focused on the perf/UX that they can't see the bigger picture about creating walled gardens, punishing sites from outside it, and other confusing things. It's not the first time you could see that googlers live in a bubble and need a strong criticism from external world to see some problems. Google != Internet (though it's a big subset)

tdkl 10y ago

Since when is Google the only ads and analytics provider everyone uses? Ooops, that's why AMP was made in the first place.

ehsankia 10y ago
Here's a list of analytics services they support with currently over 30 different ones: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-analytics#analytics-vendors https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ana... Similarly, here's a list of supported ad-networks with almost a 100: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad#supported-ad-networks https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad#... Far from being Google only.
- andy_ppp 10y ago
  I'm looking to provide website integrations including analysis for publishers in a new way that AMP doesn't support. Embrace and extend really screws up my idea here.
- elsewhen 10y ago
  The fact that there's a list means that some are not on it, which means that there is a gatekeeper. I think we need to pick our poison: an open web with a potentially degraded experience. Or speed-optimized but closed. I for one choose the former because it's precisely the openness that made/makes the web great, and to me that trumps speed and convenience.
  - shostack 10y ago
    This. What is the process to be added? Does Google have sole control to approve and revoke access to that list? Does it place an unreasonable burden on ad tech startups that might one day be viable competitors to Google's own offering? How much will it hinder FB and their attempts at rolling out a GDN competitor?
    - cramforce 10y ago
      8 pull requests for new ad networks were submitted and approved in the last week alone. I'd say the answer to your question is: no.
      - shostack 10y ago
        While that is great to hear, that doesn't fully address the questions and concerns I raised.
        cramforce 10y ago
        Maybe it doesn't, but it is hard to give somebody who just shoots out rhetorical questions hard data on each one. I invite you to hangout on the open source project for a while and make your own impression.
        shostack 10y ago
        Do I recall correctly that you are a Googler working on AMP? Or am I mistaken? Regardless, the questions were hardly rhetorical--I'd really like to know, and the other responder answered some of the questions with answers that confirmed some of my concerns. Don't get me wrong...I think parts of what Google is doing here are solid and admirable. Publishers screwed the pooch and something had to give. But that doesn't mean Google gets a free pass on the strategic pieces of this they are clearly trying to set up and what they've done to date. The questions are valid and if you feel they are unwarranted concerns, I'd love to learn why you think the concerns are overrated.

tyingq 10y ago

Pure evil might be a bit much, but I do take issue with the behavior of the banner at the top. End users are accustomed to a banner at the top of sites, with an 'X' on them. Things like, for example, the "EU Cookie Notice". However, they are used to using the 'X' to get the irritating banner out of the way. In AMP land, clicking the X sends you back to Google. What are the chances this is what the user is expecting? Who benefits from this setup? Edit: Remember the DiggBar? https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/06/diggs-kevin-rose-diggbar-is-bad-for-the-internet-so-were-killing-it/ https://techcrunch.com/2010/04/06/diggs-kevin-rose-diggbar-i...

cramforce 10y ago
The X tested well with users, but we are reconsidering it, because of the feedback from the developer community!
- tyingq 10y ago
  Appreciate you sharing that, good to hear it's under consideration. More cynical me might say that rolling out the 'X' with that behavior, though, gets the conversation to be about fixing the banner...versus removing it altogether.
  - wmf 10y ago
    Removing the bar is phishing and fake news paradise.
    - tyingq 10y ago
      Well, because the implementation uses google urls, right? I assume they could have asked users to create amp.theirdomain.com CNAME records and upload appropriate certificates, right? Or the solution that cloudflare is using, or?
      - cramforce 10y ago
        There is no navigation (only pushState) to enable pre-rendering, so the origin cannot be changed.

ricardobeat 10y ago

None of the benefits come from the "evil" part. You could get the same from just enforcing validation, without routing everything through google CDN, cloaking URLs and breaking the UI.

jasonlingx 10y ago

These tricks have always been the bread and butter of spammers and scammers: Make users think they have clicked through to NYT when they are actually still on your site. Show NYT's content on your own site in an iframe.

throwaway91111 10y ago
Exactly. It's bad to teach users the URL isn't related to the content.
ehsankia 10y ago
Except NYT put their content there and has near full control of it. It's just hosted (and paid) by someone else. It's just like you using my server as a mirror. You can take it down or edit it at any time you want. So your example makes no sense. This is a mutually beneficial setup. Google provides fast servers all across the globe for free and includes it in the AMP carousel. There's value both ways, and user gets a much faster experience. Yes, there are a couple UX that are a bit rough, but looking at this change, it seems like they are actively working to improve it.
- manigandham 10y ago
  We're talking from the perspective of the user, not the publisher having control. CDNs are not that expensive. There are already too many issues with people going to sites that are not what they claim, so further pushing cloaked URLs does not help.

manigandham 10y ago

The complete forking of HTML for primarily google search traffic will do more harm than good. HTML is already fast. Google could've used search rankings to factor in site speed and forced many sites to become much faster in a few months, instead of now requiring more resources to maintain an alternative version just for them. Also 90% of the ads on the web are served by Google's own Doubleclick for Publishers, one of the slowest ad servers available.

andy_ppp 10y ago
Yes! Ban slow ads you say? But we make money from that and it means we can extend the web for our purposes! Brilliant!
lostboys67 10y ago
yes good luck with that if you have had to work with any site on the internet it can be a Sisyphean task to get trivial changes made on many sites.
- manigandham 10y ago
  Search rankings and the resulting traffic are a priority, changes would be made quickly. AMP pages were rolled out within weeks as well, but all that time and effort could've been spent on making the universal HTML page much better.
  - lostboys67 10y ago
    Lol you haven't worked with may real sites in the wild around 80% of the ones I have worked with need the CTO to tell the developers to pull their socks up or your all on a PIP
    - manigandham 10y ago
      What? What are "real sites"? I'm in the adtech industry and know execs and devs at all the top publishers. Revenue/traffic issues are at the top of the list. They don't sit around doing nothing all day. Regardless, resources are always constrained and working on AMP means not working on the standard (mobile) HTML version.

gcb0 10y ago

proof it is evil: a site that doesn't support amp but is as nimble/fast and have Datacenters with lower latency to their readers than google, will still be punished (on Google's serp) over a site that has a crap website but gave in onto amp.

jakub_g 10y ago
I think it might be that the technical team behind the AMP has good intentions but they are so focused on the perf/UX that they can't see the bigger picture about creating walled gardens, punishing sites from outside it, and other confusing things. It's not the first time you could see that googlers live in a bubble and need a strong criticism from external world to see some problems. Google != Internet (though it's a big subset)