5 ms·

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 conten

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?
- ShellGh0st 9y ago
  Google is grabbing a normal website and completely, utterly breaking it. Have you ever actually tried to use an AMP page, share it, etc? AMP is garbage, and honestly whoever signed off on it shouldn't have a position at Google or wider tech community.
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    It's the creator of the content that creates the AMP page and publishes it on AMP.
    - IanCal 9y ago
      That's not quite accurate. If you make an AMP page, Google will cache it. Google caching it is not optional. https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq#can-i-stop-content-from-being-cached https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq#can-i-stop-conte...
      - EGreg 9y ago
        Why would you make an AMP page?
        IanCal 9y ago
        Restricting what you use to the AMP subset would make your page quite fast, with a dependency on a javascript file that most mobile browsers should have cached, along with having your page in the top carousel loading in smoothly like all the others. This can all be detected from your main page when crawled (as it'll link to the AMP version) so depending on the device one or the other can be presented as a search result. None of that requires being hosted by google.

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?

ShellGh0st 9y ago
Google is grabbing a normal website and completely, utterly breaking it. Have you ever actually tried to use an AMP page, share it, etc? AMP is garbage, and honestly whoever signed off on it shouldn't have a position at Google or wider tech community.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  It's the creator of the content that creates the AMP page and publishes it on AMP.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    That's not quite accurate. If you make an AMP page, Google will cache it. Google caching it is not optional. https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq#can-i-stop-content-from-being-cached https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq#can-i-stop-conte...
    - EGreg 9y ago
      Why would you make an AMP page?
      - IanCal 9y ago
        Restricting what you use to the AMP subset would make your page quite fast, with a dependency on a javascript file that most mobile browsers should have cached, along with having your page in the top carousel loading in smoothly like all the others. This can all be detected from your main page when crawled (as it'll link to the AMP version) so depending on the device one or the other can be presented as a search result. None of that requires being hosted by google.