11 ms·

The author has some very valid points against AMP from a technical standpoint, but for me there is a single reason that is sufficient: the Web is, and should st

The author has some very valid points against AMP from a technical standpoint, but for me there is a single reason that is sufficient: the Web is, and should stay, free and open. Indeed, I'm having really hard time trying to understand how people can be fine with AMP while fighting for the net neutrality and so on.

chris__butters 9y ago
Completely agree, while technically AMP is suitable but it creates a walled garden by using Google - who actually boost page rankings if you use it, so they have publishers by the balls "forcing" them to use AMP to get higher in their rankings.
- AznHisoka 9y ago
  AMP does not seem like a walled garden tech. any crawler can find and use the AMP version of a page through this tag: <link rel="amphtml" href="https://www.example.com/url/to/amp/document.html"> https://www.example.com/url/to/amp/document.html"> Thus all google is doing is rewarding sites that have implemented this and as a result load fast, no? imo, its drastically different to Instant Articles because you can never ever find the Instant Articles version of a web page. its private and only fb knows it.
  - boramalper 9y ago
    I am not saying exactly that Google is evil, and maybe they don't even have bad intentions (heck, we are talking about a corporate identity here, how far can we apply morals?). But, what I am thinking is that AMP and its rivals (such as Instant Articles) hurt the free & open Web. For instance, Google Search is invaluable, but as a side effect, a website that doesn't end up on the first page of a Google Search result for instance, is nearly non-existent. Also, the notion of hyperlinks are crucial to the Web and these projects break it. Hyperlinks originate from an article from 1945, "As We May Think"[1], and the term itself is coined by Ted Nelson in 1965 for Project Xanadu. That's how you create a web that is now called the Web. That's also what Google's PageRank algorithm depends on, at least at the beginning. Now, letting Google host your content, under a link such as `https://www.google.com/amp/www.example.com/amp/doc.html` https://www.google.com/amp/www.example.com/amp/doc.html`, you are breaking hyperlinks: it is no more linking different websites together. [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-m...
    - chii 9y ago
      i would expect that content producers will start putting in abreviated versions of their content in AMP format to satisfy the AMP requirement as minimially as possible, and then add a link back to the original site for the rest.
      - bryanlarsen 9y ago
        That's exactly what allrecipes.com used to do, and they have fairly high Google juice for random recipes. I thought they still did, but when I went to verify it didn't show up. It'd be interesting to know why they stopped.
      - ryantownsend 9y ago
        I'm going to guess Google would penalise that behaviour for showing different content, justifying it as "harming the user experience" or something. If they don't do this already, they probably will if they keep going down the AMP rabbit-hole.
      - arielm 9y ago
        I believe reddit does something like that where they include only a portion of a thread with a big “view full thread” button. I think that’s a good idea, but I fear some users won’t realize there’s more or may not understand the abrupt change in layout/design/etc.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Thus all google is doing is rewarding sites that have implemented this and as a result load fast, no? No. And Google could not care less if pages load fast -- it could incenticize making pages faster with traditional methods instead. It's all about capturing more eyeballs and proxying more traffic.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      But why? AMP allows other advertisers. They can track clicks just as easily with a redirect. They could quite easily change the UI of the Android browser to allow for fast switching through search results. Nobody cares what CDN the bytes are served from if the content is identical. I agree that it's somehow yucky, but I don't see how it can be ascribed to malice intent, instead of an effort to improve the user experience that maybe goes too far.
    - brainfire 9y ago
      They already did that, and web "developers" did not do the work. The period in which Google incentivized faster page loads was the period of some of the worst page bloat growth.
      - coldtea 9y ago
        >They already did that, and web "developers" did not do the work. It's not up to them to decide after that.
      - dspillett 9y ago
        It depends what "market" you are looking at. In some areas people understand care about such things, in those areas we did and still do see some optimisation effort. Far from everywhere of course, even within that subset, but I'd wager there was improvement overall (or at least things got worse less than they otherwise would). In other areas though the available audience either doesn't understand or doesn't care (because their connection and CPU are fast enough to cope for instance, and they aren't on an expensive metered link) or both. I say "available audience" because for these sites the "target audience" is every-human-alive-several-times-over-good-god-we-need-more-ad-impressions-and-clicks - the likes of buzzfeed and the other click-bait filled "news" and "entertainment" sites where four sentences of content can be stretched over sixteen pages of large, slow loading, auto-playing, obnoxious adverts. The people who care about load time (and/or relevant technical or privacy matters) simply don't follow those links. The people who do follow the links aren't worth making page load optimisations for because they simply won't care or notice, so from the site's PoV the time is better spent on adverts-hung-onto-into-each-morsel-of-content optimisations instead. And that was when Google ranking was the main thing that mattered, more recently the operators of such sites are more interested in distribution via social media so Google ranking you lower for a slow load is less of a concern, or if it is a concern there are tricks (not all of which Google can easily filter for - it is an on-going war of attrition) to show Google different versions of the content that does load quickly.
  - michaelt 9y ago
    Sites that are traditionally called walled gardens (facebook, AOL, compuserve...) often combine four features; (a) all the content is hosted under the walled garden's domain; (b) the walled garden designs key parts of the navigation and layout, understandably acting in their own interests; (c) the walled garden has content policies and declines to host certain content; and (d) users must have accounts and be logged in to see the content. AMP does (a) and (b); I don't know about (c); and doesn't do (d). Still, I can see why people see echos of walled gardens in AMP.
    - matt4077 9y ago
      The feature that defines a walled garden is the wall. AMP doesn't have that wall: it is perfectly usable by any other search engine/spider to replicate the experience. The website itself can link to the AMP version if that makes sense for users. Mobile browsers, or web servers, could check for and redirect to the AMP version. There's a slightly-higher wall for advertisers, I believe. But Google is rightfully afraid of antitrust issues and seems eager to get advertisers besides themselves signed up. But it is a wall in that it requires whitelisting, as far as I remember. There's a lot to criticise about AMP, but I don't think the "walled garden" metaphor fits.
      - kuschku 9y ago
        AMP has the wall. Can I get the same display in the Google Search with or without AMP? No. That’s the wall.
        AznHisoka 9y ago
        Can you elaborate? sites that dont implement AMP still appear in google news and even above AMP results as far as I can tell
        lallysingh 9y ago
        Try regular google search, instead of news.
  - josteink 9y ago
    > AMP does not seem like a walled garden tech. any crawler can find and use the AMP version of a page through this tag So "any crawler" who is willing to slavishly follow whatever Google is currently doing, and currently doing in the open (who knows how long that will last), can technically get access to the same content so it's not a "walled garden". To me it sounds like Google doing yet another non-standard thing without asking the rest of the web-community for input, and using their weight as a way to push this through in their usual, hostile manner. And here on HN people are defending it as perfectly reasonable. The mob clearly has something to learn from these guys.
    - AznHisoka 9y ago
      So lets say AMP was not invented. Web pages have been notoriously slow on mobile for a decade. Where is this open standard to make pages lod faster? where is W3 or Mozilla? Its been a decade. if there was a competituve open standard I would be against AMP but there isnt.
      - josteink 9y ago
        > Where is this open standard to make pages lod faster? Not filling a page of what is effectively 80KB static text-content with 20MBs of JS, fonts, tracking-code and other "assets" would be a good start. The web isn't slow. People deliberately create slow web-pages because they care more about user-tracking and "fancy" technology than they care about user-experience. And making Google a pre-requisite for any web-page is NOT the solution to that problem. That's the wrong way around. We need less tracking. Less JS. Less Google.
        tgragnato 9y ago
        Hopefully tech people will start to ditch companies with such a bad behaviour. > https://twitter.com/aral/status/877998804678524928 https://twitter.com/aral/status/877998804678524928
        sangnoir 9y ago
        > Not filling a page of what is effectively 80KB static text-content with 20MBs of JS, fonts, tracking-code and other "assets" would be a good start. I imagine if you expand and codify this idea, you will come up with something very close to AMP. I'm not sure if you're against the idea of AMP/AMP-like standard, or against Google's execution of it.
  - chatmasta 9y ago
    When you load an AMP page in your browser, you never actually connect to the original publisher. That seems like a walled garden to me. Personally, as a consumer, I absolutely hate the fact that I can't quickly check my browser's domain bar to see what website I'm reading (to assess its credibility for example).
- endorphone 9y ago
  who actually boost page rankings if you use it No they don't. The news carousel prioritizes AMP, but it has no known measure on search engine results. AMP chatter on here has become incredibly one-sided to the point of absurdity, where karma is easily gained by denigrating AMP, talking about "leaving" it, etc. It is beyond reasoned discussion.
  - hueving 9y ago
    The carousel is the top result.
    - endorphone 9y ago
      The carousel is only for news/trending type searches. The fact that we're all to just pretend like everything people search for is news/trending is exactly the sort of nonsense that makes discussing AMP futile on here.
      - untog 9y ago
        AMP was designed with news publishers in mind. So we're just arguing in circles if you're saying that AMP isn't a problem because it only affects news searches, when AMP was specifically designed for use by news publishers. If you aren't a news publisher that's all very well and good for you, but that doesn't mean AMP has a huge effect on how people receive their news, and that it isn't worth talking about that.
- sr2 9y ago
  > So they have publishers by the balls "forcing" them to use AMP to get higher in their rankings. Except that I don't write blogposts to please the Google search engine. A site can be found via many other ways. News sites like Reddit are a great way to be discovered, aswell as HN. There's also link dumps like Pinboard which are another way to discover, aswell as others. Twitter, etc
  - untog 9y ago
    You presumably also don't write blog posts as your primary source of income. A lot of media companies do, and depend very heavily on search engine traffic in order to make money. Between Google and Facebook, their fate is entirely out of their own control.
- type0 9y ago
  Monopoly and racketeering. Site owners, do as the Good Google says if you don't like to loose your visitors and customers.
chinathrow 9y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. The web is not free and open when platform A (Twitter) decides to overwrite links to other versions of a website by means of using a solution from platform B (Google).
thesagan 9y ago
I agree, too. I have the feeling Google is trying to protect the Internet but that this is a heavy-handed approach that actually makes developing on the open web less attractive. I don't see a lot of praise for AMP, and I'm not sure Google will achieve a fast, kind of app-ified Internet as a result.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  > I have the feeling Google is trying to protect the Internet No, they're trying to protect their bottom line. If they wanted to they could easily compute a page weight : content ratio and penalize severely on that alone.
  - thesagan 9y ago
    > No, they're trying to protect their bottom line. Same thing. Maybe your words are better said. > If they wanted to they could easily compute a page weight : content ratio and penalize severely on that alone. Agreed.
Iv 9y ago
I fail to see what, in AMP, makes the web less free or open. I am usually among the first on the stockade on invasive tech, but I have a hard time to understand the fuss around AMP. Yes, the cache is problematic, as it may allow Google, in a possible future, to filter some content, censor some other or not refresh often some pages. The thing is, if it does that, people will start using Google's caching, that's as simple as that.
- ehsankia 9y ago
  And as I user, I've never had any issues and I still don't really see the whole fuss about "copying the link being much harder". I love the much much faster load times and couldn't be happier.
  - noxToken 9y ago
    As a user, I don't mind AMP. The Web is a mostly hostile place for end users. Malicious ads, 5MB+ pages just so you can read a 1 minute text article, auto-playing videos with volume set to 100%, obtrusive ads - AMP aims to fix this crud and give users a better browsing experience. Ideologically, I'm opposed for all the reasons listed in TFA. People work to create something, yet the content and website are being ferried around by Google. AMP rendering basically strips content down to a barebones text page of the content in question with some images. Not inherently bad. However the site loses a lot of navigability, and swiping to either side moves people off of the current site and to the next search result. It's basically loading the site I selected as a search result instead of actually giving me the site I want to navigate to. It's the same as Google scraping content to respond to search queries. It's nice to be able to search for "28th US president" and get the answer, an image, quotes, some basic biographical information, and people related to Wilson. I get all that without ever have to leave the results page, yet all of the content creators who worked hard to catalog that information get no benefit. As a user: Thanks! Ideologically: Ouch.
    - corobo 9y ago
      You make good points on the size of pages and load speed. How about instead of AMP we have something that's hosted on the server instead? Something like RSS but with built in single-article views and a standard (or at least lightweight) framework? On the other hand you say AMP aims to fix this - anyone doing that for the ad views etc would simply not enable AMP on their site. AMP does not fix this.
FussyZeus 9y ago
Google gets a pass on SO MUCH of the stuff it does on here that it bewilders me, genuinely, how people on HN can hold themselves both as pro net neutrality and continue to use Android phones, the Chrome browser, and advocate for personal privacy all at the same time. Nearly every Google product spies on you to some extent, most of the time, to the furthest extent they legally and technically can. Google is DIRECTLY INCENTIVIZED to get as much info out of you as it possibly can, so that info can be distributed to advertisers and used to create a profile of you for the purposes of targeting ads. NONE OF THIS IS A SECRET, this is a business model that Google itself largely pioneered, perfected, and literally wrote the book on yet so many on HN especially are willing to give them a pass on it while deriding other, smaller companies for largely the same things on a smaller scale. As for me, I've de-Googled to a very great extent and I feel better than ever. I miss a lot of the toys from Chrome especially but I just couldn't use it anymore, constantly feeling the stares of those digital eyes.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Google give away a lot of free stuff/services, and the targeted ads aren't too bad (not trying to pull people into a walled garden/social network, for example), which is why google gets these passes - they are purchased with social capital.
  - FussyZeus 9y ago
    Except all of their free products are tainted by surveillance! If you aren't paying for the given service, how are they making money off of it? I'm willing to grant Google's probably taking losses on a few things, but I'd say at least the majority are profitable at this point, and the things that are profitable are SO profitable that they can easily offset the losses of other things. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but again and again, "free" services that were based on user data are either acquired by Google and rebranded, or they go out of business because they couldn't draw a profit. So either A: Google is hemorrhaging cash to provide all these things (which I doubt) or B: They are making money because they've figured out how, likely via volume and that social capital, to MAKE these things that seemingly few if any businesses can't make profitable, profitable.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
vorpalhex 9y ago
AMP is opt in. Full stop. You choose to participate in AMP. You can't choose to not be throttled by an ISP, or to bypass censorship.
- acdha 9y ago
  That's an over-simplification: 1. Users have no control: if you want real URLs or the full experience, you have to work around AMP or stop using Google. 2. It's technically true that publishers can choose whether to use AMP but Google rank is a make-or-break issue for many publishers and that means the decisions is made under the threat of losing out to competitors who use AMP even if your site is already just as fast using non-proprietary tooling. It would be much better for the open web and innovation in general if Google maintained a separation between the two and only used the real user experience when deciding ranking or placement in the special top results carousel.
  - vorpalhex 9y ago
    1. Correct, I mean opt-in from the publishers, who seem to be the exclusive people complaining 2. Yes. As a user who really enjoys amp and really hates that every single text-based news source takes over a minute to load on a 100Mb/s+ connection, I feel not bad at all. Not even the tiniest bit. Publishers entirely brought this upon themselves. Internet speeds are faster than they've ever been, and websites are the slowest they have ever been. This is fundamentally unacceptable. It would be better for users, and by extension, the web, if publishers stopped building horrendously bloated websites. Since they absolutely positively refuse to, AMP seems the appropriate answer - if there's demand to take away their toys, someone is going to feed into it eventually.
    - epistasis 9y ago
      I'm a user. I hate AMP as a user. If it didn't have terrible scrolling and weird navigation behavior and hide the information source, then I'd probably like it for the speed. And since I don't mind other walled gardens like the iOS App Store, I probably wouldn't mind AMP. But I hate it so much that I switched search engines, since I couldn't turn AMP off when using Google search. I sometimes discuss principled reasons for disliking AMP in HN threads, but I'm coming to the realization that it's really just the experience i dislike, and those principles would probably be overridden by UX convenience, if it actually existed. I just think the AMP team has done a really bad job of implementation now.
mickael-kerjean 9y ago
Looking at the article, It has enforce the idea that I should use it more for quick and dirty websites. Why? Because the article doesn't display alright on my mobile (screenshot here: http://mickael.kerjean.free.fr/public/IMG_1720.PNG http://mickael.kerjean.free.fr/public/IMG_1720.PNG) From a user experience, it's not great. The way I see it, AMP is just another alternative to Bootstrap. Sure, it's not perfect but when I need to quickly add a few things to create something simple, it does the job. Like any piece of techs, there's some downside, but at least you benefit from: - less ui bugs in your website as it was likely test accross more devices that you could ever do on your own - would load faster than you bootstrap equivalent

chris__butters 9y ago

Completely agree, while technically AMP is suitable but it creates a walled garden by using Google - who actually boost page rankings if you use it, so they have publishers by the balls "forcing" them to use AMP to get higher in their rankings.

AznHisoka 9y ago
AMP does not seem like a walled garden tech. any crawler can find and use the AMP version of a page through this tag: <link rel="amphtml" href="https://www.example.com/url/to/amp/document.html"> https://www.example.com/url/to/amp/document.html"> Thus all google is doing is rewarding sites that have implemented this and as a result load fast, no? imo, its drastically different to Instant Articles because you can never ever find the Instant Articles version of a web page. its private and only fb knows it.
- boramalper 9y ago
  I am not saying exactly that Google is evil, and maybe they don't even have bad intentions (heck, we are talking about a corporate identity here, how far can we apply morals?). But, what I am thinking is that AMP and its rivals (such as Instant Articles) hurt the free & open Web. For instance, Google Search is invaluable, but as a side effect, a website that doesn't end up on the first page of a Google Search result for instance, is nearly non-existent. Also, the notion of hyperlinks are crucial to the Web and these projects break it. Hyperlinks originate from an article from 1945, "As We May Think"[1], and the term itself is coined by Ted Nelson in 1965 for Project Xanadu. That's how you create a web that is now called the Web. That's also what Google's PageRank algorithm depends on, at least at the beginning. Now, letting Google host your content, under a link such as `https://www.google.com/amp/www.example.com/amp/doc.html` https://www.google.com/amp/www.example.com/amp/doc.html`, you are breaking hyperlinks: it is no more linking different websites together. [1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-m...
  - chii 9y ago
    i would expect that content producers will start putting in abreviated versions of their content in AMP format to satisfy the AMP requirement as minimially as possible, and then add a link back to the original site for the rest.
    - bryanlarsen 9y ago
      That's exactly what allrecipes.com used to do, and they have fairly high Google juice for random recipes. I thought they still did, but when I went to verify it didn't show up. It'd be interesting to know why they stopped.
    - ryantownsend 9y ago
      I'm going to guess Google would penalise that behaviour for showing different content, justifying it as "harming the user experience" or something. If they don't do this already, they probably will if they keep going down the AMP rabbit-hole.
    - arielm 9y ago
      I believe reddit does something like that where they include only a portion of a thread with a big “view full thread” button. I think that’s a good idea, but I fear some users won’t realize there’s more or may not understand the abrupt change in layout/design/etc.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Thus all google is doing is rewarding sites that have implemented this and as a result load fast, no? No. And Google could not care less if pages load fast -- it could incenticize making pages faster with traditional methods instead. It's all about capturing more eyeballs and proxying more traffic.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    But why? AMP allows other advertisers. They can track clicks just as easily with a redirect. They could quite easily change the UI of the Android browser to allow for fast switching through search results. Nobody cares what CDN the bytes are served from if the content is identical. I agree that it's somehow yucky, but I don't see how it can be ascribed to malice intent, instead of an effort to improve the user experience that maybe goes too far.
  - brainfire 9y ago
    They already did that, and web "developers" did not do the work. The period in which Google incentivized faster page loads was the period of some of the worst page bloat growth.
    - coldtea 9y ago
      >They already did that, and web "developers" did not do the work. It's not up to them to decide after that.
    - dspillett 9y ago
      It depends what "market" you are looking at. In some areas people understand care about such things, in those areas we did and still do see some optimisation effort. Far from everywhere of course, even within that subset, but I'd wager there was improvement overall (or at least things got worse less than they otherwise would). In other areas though the available audience either doesn't understand or doesn't care (because their connection and CPU are fast enough to cope for instance, and they aren't on an expensive metered link) or both. I say "available audience" because for these sites the "target audience" is every-human-alive-several-times-over-good-god-we-need-more-ad-impressions-and-clicks - the likes of buzzfeed and the other click-bait filled "news" and "entertainment" sites where four sentences of content can be stretched over sixteen pages of large, slow loading, auto-playing, obnoxious adverts. The people who care about load time (and/or relevant technical or privacy matters) simply don't follow those links. The people who do follow the links aren't worth making page load optimisations for because they simply won't care or notice, so from the site's PoV the time is better spent on adverts-hung-onto-into-each-morsel-of-content optimisations instead. And that was when Google ranking was the main thing that mattered, more recently the operators of such sites are more interested in distribution via social media so Google ranking you lower for a slow load is less of a concern, or if it is a concern there are tricks (not all of which Google can easily filter for - it is an on-going war of attrition) to show Google different versions of the content that does load quickly.
- michaelt 9y ago
  Sites that are traditionally called walled gardens (facebook, AOL, compuserve...) often combine four features; (a) all the content is hosted under the walled garden's domain; (b) the walled garden designs key parts of the navigation and layout, understandably acting in their own interests; (c) the walled garden has content policies and declines to host certain content; and (d) users must have accounts and be logged in to see the content. AMP does (a) and (b); I don't know about (c); and doesn't do (d). Still, I can see why people see echos of walled gardens in AMP.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    The feature that defines a walled garden is the wall. AMP doesn't have that wall: it is perfectly usable by any other search engine/spider to replicate the experience. The website itself can link to the AMP version if that makes sense for users. Mobile browsers, or web servers, could check for and redirect to the AMP version. There's a slightly-higher wall for advertisers, I believe. But Google is rightfully afraid of antitrust issues and seems eager to get advertisers besides themselves signed up. But it is a wall in that it requires whitelisting, as far as I remember. There's a lot to criticise about AMP, but I don't think the "walled garden" metaphor fits.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      AMP has the wall. Can I get the same display in the Google Search with or without AMP? No. That’s the wall.
      - AznHisoka 9y ago
        Can you elaborate? sites that dont implement AMP still appear in google news and even above AMP results as far as I can tell
        lallysingh 9y ago
        Try regular google search, instead of news.
- josteink 9y ago
  > AMP does not seem like a walled garden tech. any crawler can find and use the AMP version of a page through this tag So "any crawler" who is willing to slavishly follow whatever Google is currently doing, and currently doing in the open (who knows how long that will last), can technically get access to the same content so it's not a "walled garden". To me it sounds like Google doing yet another non-standard thing without asking the rest of the web-community for input, and using their weight as a way to push this through in their usual, hostile manner. And here on HN people are defending it as perfectly reasonable. The mob clearly has something to learn from these guys.
  - AznHisoka 9y ago
    So lets say AMP was not invented. Web pages have been notoriously slow on mobile for a decade. Where is this open standard to make pages lod faster? where is W3 or Mozilla? Its been a decade. if there was a competituve open standard I would be against AMP but there isnt.
    - josteink 9y ago
      > Where is this open standard to make pages lod faster? Not filling a page of what is effectively 80KB static text-content with 20MBs of JS, fonts, tracking-code and other "assets" would be a good start. The web isn't slow. People deliberately create slow web-pages because they care more about user-tracking and "fancy" technology than they care about user-experience. And making Google a pre-requisite for any web-page is NOT the solution to that problem. That's the wrong way around. We need less tracking. Less JS. Less Google.
      - tgragnato 9y ago
        Hopefully tech people will start to ditch companies with such a bad behaviour. > https://twitter.com/aral/status/877998804678524928 https://twitter.com/aral/status/877998804678524928
      - sangnoir 9y ago
        > Not filling a page of what is effectively 80KB static text-content with 20MBs of JS, fonts, tracking-code and other "assets" would be a good start. I imagine if you expand and codify this idea, you will come up with something very close to AMP. I'm not sure if you're against the idea of AMP/AMP-like standard, or against Google's execution of it.
- chatmasta 9y ago
  When you load an AMP page in your browser, you never actually connect to the original publisher. That seems like a walled garden to me. Personally, as a consumer, I absolutely hate the fact that I can't quickly check my browser's domain bar to see what website I'm reading (to assess its credibility for example).
endorphone 9y ago
who actually boost page rankings if you use it No they don't. The news carousel prioritizes AMP, but it has no known measure on search engine results. AMP chatter on here has become incredibly one-sided to the point of absurdity, where karma is easily gained by denigrating AMP, talking about "leaving" it, etc. It is beyond reasoned discussion.
- hueving 9y ago
  The carousel is the top result.
  - endorphone 9y ago
    The carousel is only for news/trending type searches. The fact that we're all to just pretend like everything people search for is news/trending is exactly the sort of nonsense that makes discussing AMP futile on here.
    - untog 9y ago
      AMP was designed with news publishers in mind. So we're just arguing in circles if you're saying that AMP isn't a problem because it only affects news searches, when AMP was specifically designed for use by news publishers. If you aren't a news publisher that's all very well and good for you, but that doesn't mean AMP has a huge effect on how people receive their news, and that it isn't worth talking about that.
sr2 9y ago
> So they have publishers by the balls "forcing" them to use AMP to get higher in their rankings. Except that I don't write blogposts to please the Google search engine. A site can be found via many other ways. News sites like Reddit are a great way to be discovered, aswell as HN. There's also link dumps like Pinboard which are another way to discover, aswell as others. Twitter, etc
- untog 9y ago
  You presumably also don't write blog posts as your primary source of income. A lot of media companies do, and depend very heavily on search engine traffic in order to make money. Between Google and Facebook, their fate is entirely out of their own control.
type0 9y ago
Monopoly and racketeering. Site owners, do as the Good Google says if you don't like to loose your visitors and customers.

chinathrow 9y ago

I wholeheartedly agree. The web is not free and open when platform A (Twitter) decides to overwrite links to other versions of a website by means of using a solution from platform B (Google).

thesagan 9y ago

I agree, too. I have the feeling Google is trying to protect the Internet but that this is a heavy-handed approach that actually makes developing on the open web less attractive. I don't see a lot of praise for AMP, and I'm not sure Google will achieve a fast, kind of app-ified Internet as a result.

jacquesm 9y ago
> I have the feeling Google is trying to protect the Internet No, they're trying to protect their bottom line. If they wanted to they could easily compute a page weight : content ratio and penalize severely on that alone.
- thesagan 9y ago
  > No, they're trying to protect their bottom line. Same thing. Maybe your words are better said. > If they wanted to they could easily compute a page weight : content ratio and penalize severely on that alone. Agreed.

Iv 9y ago

I fail to see what, in AMP, makes the web less free or open. I am usually among the first on the stockade on invasive tech, but I have a hard time to understand the fuss around AMP. Yes, the cache is problematic, as it may allow Google, in a possible future, to filter some content, censor some other or not refresh often some pages. The thing is, if it does that, people will start using Google's caching, that's as simple as that.

ehsankia 9y ago
And as I user, I've never had any issues and I still don't really see the whole fuss about "copying the link being much harder". I love the much much faster load times and couldn't be happier.
- noxToken 9y ago
  As a user, I don't mind AMP. The Web is a mostly hostile place for end users. Malicious ads, 5MB+ pages just so you can read a 1 minute text article, auto-playing videos with volume set to 100%, obtrusive ads - AMP aims to fix this crud and give users a better browsing experience. Ideologically, I'm opposed for all the reasons listed in TFA. People work to create something, yet the content and website are being ferried around by Google. AMP rendering basically strips content down to a barebones text page of the content in question with some images. Not inherently bad. However the site loses a lot of navigability, and swiping to either side moves people off of the current site and to the next search result. It's basically loading the site I selected as a search result instead of actually giving me the site I want to navigate to. It's the same as Google scraping content to respond to search queries. It's nice to be able to search for "28th US president" and get the answer, an image, quotes, some basic biographical information, and people related to Wilson. I get all that without ever have to leave the results page, yet all of the content creators who worked hard to catalog that information get no benefit. As a user: Thanks! Ideologically: Ouch.
  - corobo 9y ago
    You make good points on the size of pages and load speed. How about instead of AMP we have something that's hosted on the server instead? Something like RSS but with built in single-article views and a standard (or at least lightweight) framework? On the other hand you say AMP aims to fix this - anyone doing that for the ad views etc would simply not enable AMP on their site. AMP does not fix this.

FussyZeus 9y ago

Google gets a pass on SO MUCH of the stuff it does on here that it bewilders me, genuinely, how people on HN can hold themselves both as pro net neutrality and continue to use Android phones, the Chrome browser, and advocate for personal privacy all at the same time. Nearly every Google product spies on you to some extent, most of the time, to the furthest extent they legally and technically can. Google is DIRECTLY INCENTIVIZED to get as much info out of you as it possibly can, so that info can be distributed to advertisers and used to create a profile of you for the purposes of targeting ads. NONE OF THIS IS A SECRET, this is a business model that Google itself largely pioneered, perfected, and literally wrote the book on yet so many on HN especially are willing to give them a pass on it while deriding other, smaller companies for largely the same things on a smaller scale. As for me, I've de-Googled to a very great extent and I feel better than ever. I miss a lot of the toys from Chrome especially but I just couldn't use it anymore, constantly feeling the stares of those digital eyes.

Chris2048 9y ago
Google give away a lot of free stuff/services, and the targeted ads aren't too bad (not trying to pull people into a walled garden/social network, for example), which is why google gets these passes - they are purchased with social capital.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  Except all of their free products are tainted by surveillance! If you aren't paying for the given service, how are they making money off of it? I'm willing to grant Google's probably taking losses on a few things, but I'd say at least the majority are profitable at this point, and the things that are profitable are SO profitable that they can easily offset the losses of other things. Maybe I'm just too cynical, but again and again, "free" services that were based on user data are either acquired by Google and rebranded, or they go out of business because they couldn't draw a profit. So either A: Google is hemorrhaging cash to provide all these things (which I doubt) or B: They are making money because they've figured out how, likely via volume and that social capital, to MAKE these things that seemingly few if any businesses can't make profitable, profitable.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

vorpalhex 9y ago

AMP is opt in. Full stop. You choose to participate in AMP. You can't choose to not be throttled by an ISP, or to bypass censorship.

acdha 9y ago
That's an over-simplification: 1. Users have no control: if you want real URLs or the full experience, you have to work around AMP or stop using Google. 2. It's technically true that publishers can choose whether to use AMP but Google rank is a make-or-break issue for many publishers and that means the decisions is made under the threat of losing out to competitors who use AMP even if your site is already just as fast using non-proprietary tooling. It would be much better for the open web and innovation in general if Google maintained a separation between the two and only used the real user experience when deciding ranking or placement in the special top results carousel.
- vorpalhex 9y ago
  1. Correct, I mean opt-in from the publishers, who seem to be the exclusive people complaining 2. Yes. As a user who really enjoys amp and really hates that every single text-based news source takes over a minute to load on a 100Mb/s+ connection, I feel not bad at all. Not even the tiniest bit. Publishers entirely brought this upon themselves. Internet speeds are faster than they've ever been, and websites are the slowest they have ever been. This is fundamentally unacceptable. It would be better for users, and by extension, the web, if publishers stopped building horrendously bloated websites. Since they absolutely positively refuse to, AMP seems the appropriate answer - if there's demand to take away their toys, someone is going to feed into it eventually.
  - epistasis 9y ago
    I'm a user. I hate AMP as a user. If it didn't have terrible scrolling and weird navigation behavior and hide the information source, then I'd probably like it for the speed. And since I don't mind other walled gardens like the iOS App Store, I probably wouldn't mind AMP. But I hate it so much that I switched search engines, since I couldn't turn AMP off when using Google search. I sometimes discuss principled reasons for disliking AMP in HN threads, but I'm coming to the realization that it's really just the experience i dislike, and those principles would probably be overridden by UX convenience, if it actually existed. I just think the AMP team has done a really bad job of implementation now.

mickael-kerjean 9y ago

Looking at the article, It has enforce the idea that I should use it more for quick and dirty websites. Why? Because the article doesn't display alright on my mobile (screenshot here: http://mickael.kerjean.free.fr/public/IMG_1720.PNG http://mickael.kerjean.free.fr/public/IMG_1720.PNG) From a user experience, it's not great. The way I see it, AMP is just another alternative to Bootstrap. Sure, it's not perfect but when I need to quickly add a few things to create something simple, it does the job. Like any piece of techs, there's some downside, but at least you benefit from: - less ui bugs in your website as it was likely test accross more devices that you could ever do on your own - would load faster than you bootstrap equivalent