5 ms·

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 expe

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.
  - vengefulduck 9y ago
    It only affects the carousel at the top of the site
    - kuschku 9y ago
      Which, on mobile, takes ~40% of the available page. Often catapulting a page 13 result to #2
- shawnz 9y ago
  Then is HTTPS also a wall, given that HTTPS results are favoured by Google search?
  - kuschku 9y ago
    What? With HTTPS, I get full control. With AMP, I get a different search ranking if I use Google’s AMP version, or if I self-host the AMP scripts (to prevent users being tracked by Google). I have to allow every user of my site to be tracked by Google if I want to get the AMP ranking advantage. I can’t fork AMP. The ranking advantage is given only if you use Google’s AMP cache. How can you seriously compare this with HTTPS?
  - type0 9y ago
    It would be if you had to use Googles as your CA, immediate or intermediate, whatever.
xiaoma 9y ago
Here's the wall: could any competitor to Google itself ever be on AMP? (E.g., a competitor to search, Gmail, YouTube, or adsense/adwords.) Or would it have to be something on the open web? And if only AMP pages get ranked well on Google in the future, how much harder would it be for such competitors to ever get noticed in the first place?
- comex 9y ago
  > And if only AMP pages get ranked well on Google in the future Currently, the only thing on Google results explicitly limited to AMP is the mobile news carousel. Presumably AMP pages also do well on the "loads fast" evaluation that affects normal rankings, but in theory it should be possible to do equally well without AMP. If this is changed, or turns out to not hold up in practice, then there is cause for concern, but I have not seen evidence of either. News sites, of course, don't generally compete with Google's core services - unless you count Blogger, but in that case all news sites do). The one thing I can think of is that they might embed videos hosted on competitors to YouTube. When it comes to that, AMP is a mixed bag. Unlike on the open web, video players that use custom controls/iframes (like YouTube) need to be explicitly approved, since there's not much alternative without granting a blanket license to put arbitrary sites in iframes, which would (mostly) defeat the purpose. So Google acts as a gatekeeper. On the other hand, the spec [1] already lists like a dozen random video hosts you've never heard of; that's not evidence that Google wouldn't try to block a more serious competitor to YouTube, should one ever spring up, but there's certainly no evidence that they would. [1] https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-video https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-vid...
  - xiaoma 9y ago
    Unless I'm mistaken, they did experiment with various attempts to highlight their own video offerings beyond what popularity dictated before finally giving in and buying YouTube. And we all remember the kinds of crap Google did to try to foist Plus on users who had no interest in it. At one point 1/4 of the annual bonus of everyone at the company was tied to it. http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-just-tied-employee-bonuses-to-the-success-of-the-googles-social-strategy-2011-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-just-tied-employee...
nailer 9y ago
What other CDN than Google's can host AMP content and still get in the Carousel? Hint: none.

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.
- vengefulduck 9y ago
  It only affects the carousel at the top of the site
  - kuschku 9y ago
    Which, on mobile, takes ~40% of the available page. Often catapulting a page 13 result to #2
shawnz 9y ago
Then is HTTPS also a wall, given that HTTPS results are favoured by Google search?
- kuschku 9y ago
  What? With HTTPS, I get full control. With AMP, I get a different search ranking if I use Google’s AMP version, or if I self-host the AMP scripts (to prevent users being tracked by Google). I have to allow every user of my site to be tracked by Google if I want to get the AMP ranking advantage. I can’t fork AMP. The ranking advantage is given only if you use Google’s AMP cache. How can you seriously compare this with HTTPS?
- type0 9y ago
  It would be if you had to use Googles as your CA, immediate or intermediate, whatever.

xiaoma 9y ago

Here's the wall: could any competitor to Google itself ever be on AMP? (E.g., a competitor to search, Gmail, YouTube, or adsense/adwords.) Or would it have to be something on the open web? And if only AMP pages get ranked well on Google in the future, how much harder would it be for such competitors to ever get noticed in the first place?

comex 9y ago
> And if only AMP pages get ranked well on Google in the future Currently, the only thing on Google results explicitly limited to AMP is the mobile news carousel. Presumably AMP pages also do well on the "loads fast" evaluation that affects normal rankings, but in theory it should be possible to do equally well without AMP. If this is changed, or turns out to not hold up in practice, then there is cause for concern, but I have not seen evidence of either. News sites, of course, don't generally compete with Google's core services - unless you count Blogger, but in that case all news sites do). The one thing I can think of is that they might embed videos hosted on competitors to YouTube. When it comes to that, AMP is a mixed bag. Unlike on the open web, video players that use custom controls/iframes (like YouTube) need to be explicitly approved, since there's not much alternative without granting a blanket license to put arbitrary sites in iframes, which would (mostly) defeat the purpose. So Google acts as a gatekeeper. On the other hand, the spec [1] already lists like a dozen random video hosts you've never heard of; that's not evidence that Google wouldn't try to block a more serious competitor to YouTube, should one ever spring up, but there's certainly no evidence that they would. [1] https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-video https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-vid...
- xiaoma 9y ago
  Unless I'm mistaken, they did experiment with various attempts to highlight their own video offerings beyond what popularity dictated before finally giving in and buying YouTube. And we all remember the kinds of crap Google did to try to foist Plus on users who had no interest in it. At one point 1/4 of the annual bonus of everyone at the company was tied to it. http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-just-tied-employee-bonuses-to-the-success-of-the-googles-social-strategy-2011-4 http://www.businessinsider.com/larry-page-just-tied-employee...

nailer 9y ago

What other CDN than Google's can host AMP content and still get in the Carousel? Hint: none.