7 ms·

AMP is a content lock-in strategy with the promise of boosted rank Open, not locked in, anyone can parse and cache it and it has to be publicly available (vers

AMP is a content lock-in strategy with the promise of boosted rank Open, not locked in, anyone can parse and cache it and it has to be publicly available (versus Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles that are pushed to those services), ridiculously straightforward and obvious. Oh, and there is no boosted rank. So aside from the entirety of your statement, you're entirely correct. People can have rational discussions about whether AMP is worthwhile or not (for instance, Google hosting the canonical script seems dubious) -- or whether some other subset of HTML would be ideal given the endless bloat that allows publishers to abuse fly-by users. However the rhetoric on here regarding AMP is so over the top of flag waving nonsense that it simply doesn't fit on a site where presumably we're a little more enlightened.

manigandham 9y ago
Nobody else wants to parse or host it because HTML works just fine. We don't need a new version from Google that so far only helps with search result visibility while losing flexibility and increasing the amount of effort publishers need to effectively maintain 2 copies of their site. This is a regression back to the days of WAP mobile sites. It also does lock-in the users into Google's experience rather than actually visiting the site, which is a big issue, including problems like further centralizing traffic and data to a single company. Google could easily penalize search results based on speed with a strict cutoff and the entire web would become faster within weeks. Also the largest ad server on the web is Google's own doubleclick which is one of the slowest. There are many better ways to improve performance and UX without AMP.
- endorphone 9y ago
  Nobody else wants to parse it because HTML is a perfectly well functioning and accepted system Apple and Facebook, two of the largest content (re)publishers, have their own competing formats, and Bing currently spiders and parses AMP content as well. But thinking more holistically, many others simply pushed their content into apps, abandoning the web wholesale. Because while we can talk about how "well functioning" the web is, a virtually universal observation is that native apps that just wrap a web browser are sloggy garbage, and a big reason is that the HTML stack has grown so enormously flexible it becomes its own enemy. We don't need a new version from Google that so far only helps with google rankings I'm a charitable sort of person, so when someone like Google comes out with something I assess why they did it without presuming the worst. In this case we see silos appearing from Apple and Facebook, not to mention the appification of content, so Google looks for a way to keep the web compelling. And it is. When I see an AMP page there are a number of user-centric benefits that make it a draw as a link, not just speed but also best behaviors. I mean, many of the complaints on here about AMP seem just surreal. For instance if you open the carousel (an option for trending topics like Trump) and swipe, it brings you to the next story in the carousel. This outrages some that you aren't locked in the gutter of a given site, which is just bizarre and anti-user.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Apple and Facebook, two of the largest content consumers, have their own competing formats Solving different problems on THEIR platforms. AMP is just imposing a non-solution to a non-problem on web users.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      It isn't imposing, and as a user who frequently travels to emerging markets, it is a problem, and as a user, I see this as a solution, I usually prefer sites with the AMP logo because my general impression is that they load far faster. Maybe you're just not the target user for this, or even for the Internet. And to be honest, pretty much nobody reading HackerNews is the target user for this.
    - monokh 9y ago
      So slow page load speed is a non problem and speeding up delivering content is not a solution? Whether you like it or not, if you search on Google, you are using THEIR platform and you are THEIR user. What they have determined is that their users want to consume content faster than what is traditionally available on the web. So you'd rather wait 3 seconds to see your ebay listing than half a second? For the open web, javascript bloat and google is taking over the world reasons. That suits you fine but not the majority of users on Google. Why would Google be implementing a technology that is BAD for their users?
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        > Why would Google be implementing a technology that is BAD for their users? Because it is GOOD for Google.
      - manigandham 9y ago
        This is about consolidating more time and data on their systems. You never leave a Google server with AMP. UX is secondary benefit used as marketing to force this on sites along with search rankings. Also Google owns Doubleclick which is the biggest and slowest ad server on the planet.
tyingq 9y ago
Surely you can see the less attractive aspects of Google's AMP cache? They inject a carousel, push the organics down. Then you have to publish AMP to make it into the carousel. At which point Google takes over your page. Adding a big amp banner with a [x] button that doesn't do what users expect. Inserting a pagination widget that scrolls to competing content, breaking the back button, etc. Is it a coincidence that all of that drives more pageviews of Google's site? Is it really your page if you don't control it?
- endorphone 9y ago
  They inject a carousel, push the organics down. Why do we always have to talk about the carousel? It is only relevant for news/trending topics. For that the whole "organics" are upended regardless. Is it a coincidence that all of that drives more pageviews of Google's site? I really, really don't think Google cares about "pageviews". But yes, it may make users think "these results are quick and convenient, so maybe I won't use Facebook as much for trending topics".
  - tyingq 9y ago
    >I really, really don't think Google cares about "pageviews". If you followed what they did over time with Wikipedia content and links, for example, you might feel differently. Or Froogle, or KG, Google Flights, or this recent change: https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremys/status/876978936177082368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F07%2F01%2Ftechnology%2Fyelp-google-european-union-antitrust.html https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremys/status/876978936177082368... , etc. The investor pressure on Google to sustain year over year click growth, that exceeds overall web growth...is tremendous. Driving more pageviews is one of a very few levers they have to do that, since they have exhausted many others. Once you push all organics off the fold, there's not much else you can do. Edit: We talk about the carousel, because it perhaps best telegraphs the true intent of AMP. Everyone told me to shut up about Froogle too, because it was free for advertisers.
    - endorphone 9y ago
have_faith 9y ago
It's true that Google doesn't explicitly boost AMP pages. But it does boost all of the attributes that AMP enforces on a page (reduced page size, loading speed, etc). So it's an implicit signal boost rather than explicit. You may think that that's fine and there's nothing wrong with that, but no doubt Google see this as a way keeping users within the Google system as much as possible while they browse. I'm personally on the fence regarding the whole situation. On one hand, I like less bloat, on the other I don't want a 3rd party involved more than is required in delivering a news article to me.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  "It's true that Google doesn't explicitly boost AMP pages. But it does boost all of the attributes that AMP enforces on a page (reduced page size, loading speed, etc)." So Google is guilty of making things that users want? "Google see this as a way keeping users within the Google system as much as possible while they browse." Well, isn't giving users what they want a way to keep them inside your system? I don't see the point in your comment, are you saying that Google should not be optimizing for what users want?
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >So Google is guilty of making things that users want? Well, I'm a user and I don't want this. I want Google to not invent a new format for web pages, and instead help make the actual web faster.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      "Well, I'm a user and I don't want this." You (and myself, and anyone reading HN) are not the target user for this, nor are you representative of the typical internet user. Remember, India has more internet users than the US has people. And you can just not click on AMP sites if you don't want them.
      - pmlnr 9y ago
        Indian users are the worst example for this, given the regular 2G connections. Hundreds of KB of JS is not helping this, especially not on low-end mobile devices.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

manigandham 9y ago

Nobody else wants to parse or host it because HTML works just fine. We don't need a new version from Google that so far only helps with search result visibility while losing flexibility and increasing the amount of effort publishers need to effectively maintain 2 copies of their site. This is a regression back to the days of WAP mobile sites. It also does lock-in the users into Google's experience rather than actually visiting the site, which is a big issue, including problems like further centralizing traffic and data to a single company. Google could easily penalize search results based on speed with a strict cutoff and the entire web would become faster within weeks. Also the largest ad server on the web is Google's own doubleclick which is one of the slowest. There are many better ways to improve performance and UX without AMP.

endorphone 9y ago
Nobody else wants to parse it because HTML is a perfectly well functioning and accepted system Apple and Facebook, two of the largest content (re)publishers, have their own competing formats, and Bing currently spiders and parses AMP content as well. But thinking more holistically, many others simply pushed their content into apps, abandoning the web wholesale. Because while we can talk about how "well functioning" the web is, a virtually universal observation is that native apps that just wrap a web browser are sloggy garbage, and a big reason is that the HTML stack has grown so enormously flexible it becomes its own enemy. We don't need a new version from Google that so far only helps with google rankings I'm a charitable sort of person, so when someone like Google comes out with something I assess why they did it without presuming the worst. In this case we see silos appearing from Apple and Facebook, not to mention the appification of content, so Google looks for a way to keep the web compelling. And it is. When I see an AMP page there are a number of user-centric benefits that make it a draw as a link, not just speed but also best behaviors. I mean, many of the complaints on here about AMP seem just surreal. For instance if you open the carousel (an option for trending topics like Trump) and swipe, it brings you to the next story in the carousel. This outrages some that you aren't locked in the gutter of a given site, which is just bizarre and anti-user.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Apple and Facebook, two of the largest content consumers, have their own competing formats Solving different problems on THEIR platforms. AMP is just imposing a non-solution to a non-problem on web users.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    It isn't imposing, and as a user who frequently travels to emerging markets, it is a problem, and as a user, I see this as a solution, I usually prefer sites with the AMP logo because my general impression is that they load far faster. Maybe you're just not the target user for this, or even for the Internet. And to be honest, pretty much nobody reading HackerNews is the target user for this.
  - monokh 9y ago
    So slow page load speed is a non problem and speeding up delivering content is not a solution? Whether you like it or not, if you search on Google, you are using THEIR platform and you are THEIR user. What they have determined is that their users want to consume content faster than what is traditionally available on the web. So you'd rather wait 3 seconds to see your ebay listing than half a second? For the open web, javascript bloat and google is taking over the world reasons. That suits you fine but not the majority of users on Google. Why would Google be implementing a technology that is BAD for their users?
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      > Why would Google be implementing a technology that is BAD for their users? Because it is GOOD for Google.
    - manigandham 9y ago
      This is about consolidating more time and data on their systems. You never leave a Google server with AMP. UX is secondary benefit used as marketing to force this on sites along with search rankings. Also Google owns Doubleclick which is the biggest and slowest ad server on the planet.

tyingq 9y ago

Surely you can see the less attractive aspects of Google's AMP cache? They inject a carousel, push the organics down. Then you have to publish AMP to make it into the carousel. At which point Google takes over your page. Adding a big amp banner with a [x] button that doesn't do what users expect. Inserting a pagination widget that scrolls to competing content, breaking the back button, etc. Is it a coincidence that all of that drives more pageviews of Google's site? Is it really your page if you don't control it?

endorphone 9y ago
They inject a carousel, push the organics down. Why do we always have to talk about the carousel? It is only relevant for news/trending topics. For that the whole "organics" are upended regardless. Is it a coincidence that all of that drives more pageviews of Google's site? I really, really don't think Google cares about "pageviews". But yes, it may make users think "these results are quick and convenient, so maybe I won't use Facebook as much for trending topics".
- tyingq 9y ago
  >I really, really don't think Google cares about "pageviews". If you followed what they did over time with Wikipedia content and links, for example, you might feel differently. Or Froogle, or KG, Google Flights, or this recent change: https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremys/status/876978936177082368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2017%2F07%2F01%2Ftechnology%2Fyelp-google-european-union-antitrust.html https://mobile.twitter.com/jeremys/status/876978936177082368... , etc. The investor pressure on Google to sustain year over year click growth, that exceeds overall web growth...is tremendous. Driving more pageviews is one of a very few levers they have to do that, since they have exhausted many others. Once you push all organics off the fold, there's not much else you can do. Edit: We talk about the carousel, because it perhaps best telegraphs the true intent of AMP. Everyone told me to shut up about Froogle too, because it was free for advertisers.
  - endorphone 9y ago

have_faith 9y ago

It's true that Google doesn't explicitly boost AMP pages. But it does boost all of the attributes that AMP enforces on a page (reduced page size, loading speed, etc). So it's an implicit signal boost rather than explicit. You may think that that's fine and there's nothing wrong with that, but no doubt Google see this as a way keeping users within the Google system as much as possible while they browse. I'm personally on the fence regarding the whole situation. On one hand, I like less bloat, on the other I don't want a 3rd party involved more than is required in delivering a news article to me.

ucaetano 9y ago
"It's true that Google doesn't explicitly boost AMP pages. But it does boost all of the attributes that AMP enforces on a page (reduced page size, loading speed, etc)." So Google is guilty of making things that users want? "Google see this as a way keeping users within the Google system as much as possible while they browse." Well, isn't giving users what they want a way to keep them inside your system? I don't see the point in your comment, are you saying that Google should not be optimizing for what users want?
- coldtea 9y ago
  >So Google is guilty of making things that users want? Well, I'm a user and I don't want this. I want Google to not invent a new format for web pages, and instead help make the actual web faster.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    "Well, I'm a user and I don't want this." You (and myself, and anyone reading HN) are not the target user for this, nor are you representative of the typical internet user. Remember, India has more internet users than the US has people. And you can just not click on AMP sites if you don't want them.
    - pmlnr 9y ago
      Indian users are the worst example for this, given the regular 2G connections. Hundreds of KB of JS is not helping this, especially not on low-end mobile devices.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]