9 ms·

Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content/ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizi

Do you think there would be an uproar? Apple introduced reading mode, built-in content/ad blocking, etc. AMP actually fits in the profile of Apple -- prioritizing a fast, usable solution. This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content. Which is extremely weird given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP (aside from this user who got famous claiming that Google was stealing their content because they had enabled a Wordpress plug-in haphazardly). If Google blacklisted non-AMP content, or even just deranked it, sure there's an argument, but as of yet this notion that it's some content theft is quite strange. Google's intention with AMP is obvious, and obviously not anti-web: Facebook is becoming a primary medium where users are accessing a lot of content. I personally read all news via Facebook now, where they've integrated it heavily with a built-in browser and now instant articles (Facebook's AMP). Compared to this, the traditional web is just an obnoxious mess, not because of the web but because of the abuse that AMP restricts.

bo1024 9y ago
> If Google blacklisted non-AMP content, sure there's an argument, but as of yet this notion that it's some content theft is quite strange. Doesn't Google already admit to prioritising AMP pages in search results?
- endorphone 9y ago
  Thus far it is purportedly not a ranking factor. https://moz.com/blog/google-amp-search-results https://moz.com/blog/google-amp-search-results https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/07/06/is-google-amp-a-ranking-signal/ https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/07/06/is-google-amp-a-ran... [just to be clear, just because you read it in some HN thread doesn't make it true. Let's see a single citation that it actually influences ranking]
  - tyingq 9y ago
    In the organic results or the carousel?
  - untog 9y ago
    I'm yet to see a single page in the carousel at the top of a search page not be an AMP page.
    - espadrine 9y ago
      To be precise, it is not explicitly boosted in the rankings. One factor that Google Search takes into account is page load time. https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2010/04/using-site-speed-in-web-search-ranking.html https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2010/04/using-site-speed-i... There was a vicious spiral at work related to advertisers not caring enough about page load, and adding that signal was not enough. AMP shifted the game by placing the burden on Google of specifying a way to hit advertisers' goals while offering a faster experience.
      - untog 9y ago
        > To be precise, it is not explicitly boosted in the rankings. One factor that Google Search takes into account is page load time. And AMP pages are hosted on a Google CDN. They are very clearly putting their thumb on the scale.
- tyingq 9y ago
  They do. They seem to be a little quiet about the idea that a right/left swipe on your content switches to a competitors page though.
  - yoz-y 9y ago
    It seems to be switching to the next article on the carousel. Which, at least for me completely breaks the web experience. Opening an amp page from google requires getting used to a whole new set of, in my opinion, unnecessary conventions.
  - qrbLPHiKpiux 9y ago
    I can't think of another search engine alternative - a truly objective one. It used to be Google. Then they gained a tremendous amount of market share. Even an English language verb - googled. Now it's them. And I ask, now what?
    - paulhebert 9y ago
      Try out DuckDuckGo (https://duckduckgo.com/ https://duckduckgo.com/). I've been using it for a few years and love it. They don't track you. They don't store your info. Plus, as far as I know they don't do anything besides search so they have no reason to not be objective.
      - diydsp 9y ago
        I use DDG on all my devices at home and work. This whole thread has been a learning experience to me, because I never experience the various problems people have been reporting with AMP. Perhaps my results could have been loading faster? I'm not willing to make a deal with the devil to find out. I'm pretty satisfied with what I have now.
jeffbax 9y ago
I don't think its comparable to Apple. Apple is trying to make the user experience of existing content better (where it is located) Google is taking the content and serving it themselves. The problem is sites being slow in the first place, but Apple isn't commandeering the content itself like Google is by creating a mode where the browser can enhance legibility of any article.
- izacus 9y ago
  Huh? That doesn't hold true for whole iTunes, News stand, Music, iBooks, Podcasts and all other content silos Apple introduced. If anything they even deliberately make content consumption from competing sources harder on iOS devices.
- endorphone 9y ago
  but Apple isn't commandeering the content itself like Google is Content authors voluntarily publish their content in AMP form, so it doesn't seem fair to say that they commandeer anything: AMP is a subset of HTML intended for a fast mobile experience, and if you decide to take part you publish flags allowing Google to cache it. Google isn't unilaterally converting content to AMP. The core argument against AMP primarily seems to be a fear that users will actually prefer AMP content. Which is ultimately rather anti-user.
  - ricardobeat 9y ago
    > The core argument against AMP primarily seems to be a fear that users will actually prefer AMP content How on earth did you arrive to that conclusion?
  - johnsmith21006 9y ago
    Exactly and thanks for pointing out. What matters most is the user and user experience, It is NOT about Google or Apple. Posts like they are the #2 corp or whatever is not relevant.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  >Google is taking the content and serving it themselves. How is Google taking the content? Isn't it the creator that is publishing their content using AMP?
holografix 9y ago
You should really be careful of sourcing your news on fb, you're being spoon fed the news fb's algos want you to see.
- endorphone 9y ago
  I mean that I subscribe to the feeds of the media that I find useful, not that I follow their hot topics or suggested feeds. And many of those media sites use Instant Articles (Facebook's AMP) and honestly I've found that I greatly prefer them, because it really sucks to click a story and have an abomination that grinds my device to a halt, starts a hidden autoplay video, etc. The same forces are at play: Controlling sites that destroy the web by making it such a miserable experience.
- hk__2 9y ago
  > you're being spoon fed the news fb's algos want you to see. This comment is applicable to all media sources: replace "fb's algos" with any newspaper, website, or TV channel name. You might want to be careful of sourcing your news from one single source instead.
  - JoshMnem 9y ago
    Choosing which separate media outlets to read gives far more control than leaving it up to one company, Facebook. This extension is great: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/news-feed-eradicator-for/fjcldmjmjhkklehbacihaiopjklihlgg?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/news-feed-eradicat...
  - holografix 9y ago
    Any newspaper or website doesn't have the most indepth pyschological insight about as Facebook.
myth_buster 9y ago
> given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP This is certainly not true. The reason no many content creators and publishers moved to AMP is to not hurt their SEO. If you check most of the AMP articles targeted to publishers, it's addressed as get on the AMP wagon now or else you are doomed when Google starts ranking AMP pages higher.
- endorphone 9y ago
  >This is certainly not true. Oh but it's entirely true. If you buy the conspiracies and allusions of the anti-AMP crowd, there should be some sort of citation you can leverage. As is, the primary real concern among those who denounce AMP is that users will prefer it. Which is a pretty bizarre thing to fight against.
  - wand3r 9y ago
    I mean, it's a closed source algorithm. Google provides guidance directly and indirectly but no one knows how the rank weights work outside of Google. Amp obviously ranks higher it is the top hit in search for me. Results appear under it...
    - alanfalcon 9y ago
      Exactly. Obscure AMP results appear higher thanbigher quality non-AMP results; What needs to be cited?
      - kartickv 9y ago
        Which search result, and which obscure AMP result ranks higher than which non-AMP result? That's what needs to be cited, not an assertion free of evidence. Second, even if that does happen, the question is whether it would have happened without AMP. In other words, is it a bug in the search algorithm, independent of AMP.
        albedoa 9y ago
wyager 9y ago
> Apple introduced reading mode, A purely local feature that you have to select manually and doesn't infringe on your privacy or break the ability to share links.
brennebeck 9y ago
Reading mode is optional and at-will. You can disable pop-up blocking in Settings. It's pretty clear, I think, Apple would've approached this just like they did reading mode.
grandalf 9y ago
> This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content I found this comment interesting as well. I really like the instant load aspect and would much rather not waste time waiting for a slow page to load. I think the author feels that the free hosting provided by AMP is overshadowed by the loss of personal ad revenue from the traffic.
whoami_nr 9y ago
> If Google blacklisted non-AMP content, or even just deranked it, sure there's an argument, but as of yet this notion that it's some content theft is quite strange. They do kind of do this. AMP pages get highlighted and populate the top results( at least for me) which kind of has the same effect as reducing the rank of normal websites.
IanCal 9y ago
There are two things here that I feel are being conflated. There's the AMP library and format. That is a huge part of what you're talking about with speed, annoying popups, etc. It's an open source library and people can use it or not. Then there's Google grabbing all of the AMP pages, rewriting them and putting them on a Google domain. You cannot opt out of the second part. There's not a lot of abuse I can think of that's being restricted by this, and it feels like it would be a simple problem to fix.
- codedokode 9y ago
  Will not Google showing your pages on its domain decrease your visitor count and make your site less attractive to advertisers?
rohmish 9y ago
AFAIK AMP is just a list of Do's and Dont's that google qualify as AMP content. Even other search engines like DuckDuckGo and Bing could use it if the choose so. You can access AMP outside of google and host it yourself. You can go AMP-only if you o please. Instant Articles from Facebook on other hand is tied into facebook's platform.

bo1024 9y ago

> If Google blacklisted non-AMP content, sure there's an argument, but as of yet this notion that it's some content theft is quite strange. Doesn't Google already admit to prioritising AMP pages in search results?

endorphone 9y ago
Thus far it is purportedly not a ranking factor. https://moz.com/blog/google-amp-search-results https://moz.com/blog/google-amp-search-results https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/07/06/is-google-amp-a-ranking-signal/ https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/07/06/is-google-amp-a-ran... [just to be clear, just because you read it in some HN thread doesn't make it true. Let's see a single citation that it actually influences ranking]
- tyingq 9y ago
  In the organic results or the carousel?
- untog 9y ago
  I'm yet to see a single page in the carousel at the top of a search page not be an AMP page.
  - espadrine 9y ago
    To be precise, it is not explicitly boosted in the rankings. One factor that Google Search takes into account is page load time. https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2010/04/using-site-speed-in-web-search-ranking.html https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2010/04/using-site-speed-i... There was a vicious spiral at work related to advertisers not caring enough about page load, and adding that signal was not enough. AMP shifted the game by placing the burden on Google of specifying a way to hit advertisers' goals while offering a faster experience.
    - untog 9y ago
      > To be precise, it is not explicitly boosted in the rankings. One factor that Google Search takes into account is page load time. And AMP pages are hosted on a Google CDN. They are very clearly putting their thumb on the scale.
tyingq 9y ago
They do. They seem to be a little quiet about the idea that a right/left swipe on your content switches to a competitors page though.
- yoz-y 9y ago
  It seems to be switching to the next article on the carousel. Which, at least for me completely breaks the web experience. Opening an amp page from google requires getting used to a whole new set of, in my opinion, unnecessary conventions.
- qrbLPHiKpiux 9y ago
  I can't think of another search engine alternative - a truly objective one. It used to be Google. Then they gained a tremendous amount of market share. Even an English language verb - googled. Now it's them. And I ask, now what?
  - paulhebert 9y ago
    Try out DuckDuckGo (https://duckduckgo.com/ https://duckduckgo.com/). I've been using it for a few years and love it. They don't track you. They don't store your info. Plus, as far as I know they don't do anything besides search so they have no reason to not be objective.
    - diydsp 9y ago
      I use DDG on all my devices at home and work. This whole thread has been a learning experience to me, because I never experience the various problems people have been reporting with AMP. Perhaps my results could have been loading faster? I'm not willing to make a deal with the devil to find out. I'm pretty satisfied with what I have now.

jeffbax 9y ago

I don't think its comparable to Apple. Apple is trying to make the user experience of existing content better (where it is located) Google is taking the content and serving it themselves. The problem is sites being slow in the first place, but Apple isn't commandeering the content itself like Google is by creating a mode where the browser can enhance legibility of any article.

izacus 9y ago
Huh? That doesn't hold true for whole iTunes, News stand, Music, iBooks, Podcasts and all other content silos Apple introduced. If anything they even deliberately make content consumption from competing sources harder on iOS devices.
endorphone 9y ago
but Apple isn't commandeering the content itself like Google is Content authors voluntarily publish their content in AMP form, so it doesn't seem fair to say that they commandeer anything: AMP is a subset of HTML intended for a fast mobile experience, and if you decide to take part you publish flags allowing Google to cache it. Google isn't unilaterally converting content to AMP. The core argument against AMP primarily seems to be a fear that users will actually prefer AMP content. Which is ultimately rather anti-user.
- ricardobeat 9y ago
  > The core argument against AMP primarily seems to be a fear that users will actually prefer AMP content How on earth did you arrive to that conclusion?
- johnsmith21006 9y ago
  Exactly and thanks for pointing out. What matters most is the user and user experience, It is NOT about Google or Apple. Posts like they are the #2 corp or whatever is not relevant.
bitmapbrother 9y ago
>Google is taking the content and serving it themselves. How is Google taking the content? Isn't it the creator that is publishing their content using AMP?

holografix 9y ago

You should really be careful of sourcing your news on fb, you're being spoon fed the news fb's algos want you to see.

endorphone 9y ago
I mean that I subscribe to the feeds of the media that I find useful, not that I follow their hot topics or suggested feeds. And many of those media sites use Instant Articles (Facebook's AMP) and honestly I've found that I greatly prefer them, because it really sucks to click a story and have an abomination that grinds my device to a halt, starts a hidden autoplay video, etc. The same forces are at play: Controlling sites that destroy the web by making it such a miserable experience.
hk__2 9y ago
> you're being spoon fed the news fb's algos want you to see. This comment is applicable to all media sources: replace "fb's algos" with any newspaper, website, or TV channel name. You might want to be careful of sourcing your news from one single source instead.
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  Choosing which separate media outlets to read gives far more control than leaving it up to one company, Facebook. This extension is great: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/news-feed-eradicator-for/fjcldmjmjhkklehbacihaiopjklihlgg?hl=en https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/news-feed-eradicat...
- holografix 9y ago
  Any newspaper or website doesn't have the most indepth pyschological insight about as Facebook.

myth_buster 9y ago

> given that content creators intentionally volunteer their content to AMP This is certainly not true. The reason no many content creators and publishers moved to AMP is to not hurt their SEO. If you check most of the AMP articles targeted to publishers, it's addressed as get on the AMP wagon now or else you are doomed when Google starts ranking AMP pages higher.

endorphone 9y ago
>This is certainly not true. Oh but it's entirely true. If you buy the conspiracies and allusions of the anti-AMP crowd, there should be some sort of citation you can leverage. As is, the primary real concern among those who denounce AMP is that users will prefer it. Which is a pretty bizarre thing to fight against.
- wand3r 9y ago
  I mean, it's a closed source algorithm. Google provides guidance directly and indirectly but no one knows how the rank weights work outside of Google. Amp obviously ranks higher it is the top hit in search for me. Results appear under it...
  - alanfalcon 9y ago
    Exactly. Obscure AMP results appear higher thanbigher quality non-AMP results; What needs to be cited?
    - kartickv 9y ago
      Which search result, and which obscure AMP result ranks higher than which non-AMP result? That's what needs to be cited, not an assertion free of evidence. Second, even if that does happen, the question is whether it would have happened without AMP. In other words, is it a bug in the search algorithm, independent of AMP.
      - albedoa 9y ago

wyager 9y ago

> Apple introduced reading mode, A purely local feature that you have to select manually and doesn't infringe on your privacy or break the ability to share links.

brennebeck 9y ago

Reading mode is optional and at-will. You can disable pop-up blocking in Settings. It's pretty clear, I think, Apple would've approached this just like they did reading mode.

grandalf 9y ago

> This author notes that they "feel bad" about consuming AMP content I found this comment interesting as well. I really like the instant load aspect and would much rather not waste time waiting for a slow page to load. I think the author feels that the free hosting provided by AMP is overshadowed by the loss of personal ad revenue from the traffic.

whoami_nr 9y ago

> If Google blacklisted non-AMP content, or even just deranked it, sure there's an argument, but as of yet this notion that it's some content theft is quite strange. They do kind of do this. AMP pages get highlighted and populate the top results( at least for me) which kind of has the same effect as reducing the rank of normal websites.

IanCal 9y ago

There are two things here that I feel are being conflated. There's the AMP library and format. That is a huge part of what you're talking about with speed, annoying popups, etc. It's an open source library and people can use it or not. Then there's Google grabbing all of the AMP pages, rewriting them and putting them on a Google domain. You cannot opt out of the second part. There's not a lot of abuse I can think of that's being restricted by this, and it feels like it would be a simple problem to fix.

codedokode 9y ago
Will not Google showing your pages on its domain decrease your visitor count and make your site less attractive to advertisers?

rohmish 9y ago

AFAIK AMP is just a list of Do's and Dont's that google qualify as AMP content. Even other search engines like DuckDuckGo and Bing could use it if the choose so. You can access AMP outside of google and host it yourself. You can go AMP-only if you o please. Instant Articles from Facebook on other hand is tied into facebook's platform.