3 ms·

Not saying that's true, but if it is, wouldn't that mean AMP is not a desired product? I fully support a "faster page spec" that search engines incentivize, ju

by avaer 9y ago

Not saying that's true, but if it is, wouldn't that mean AMP is not a desired product? I fully support a "faster page spec" that search engines incentivize, just like I support a ranking boost for using HTTPS. But AMP isn't that; AMP is incentivizing the payment of tribute data to Google under the veneer of a faster page spec, to steer the rhetoric more favorably for the company.

brianwawok 9y ago
I want it as a consumer. If AMP went away tomorrow I would just browsing on my phone. Ad blockers are not good enough, and I refuse to fight popups and scroll blockers and blah blah blah in 2017.
- Tom4hawk 9y ago
  Maybe it's time to change websites you visit? If website is actively trying to prevent me from reading it I just don't do that. If you are a publisher and think that you need AMP than it only means that your website sucks big time.
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    Go look at the hackernews frontpage. A good 90% of the links are to crap. Totally impossible to read on a phone. If all I wanted to do was read hacker news comments I would be safe..
nine_k 9y ago
It's desired by the (non-paying) users, but not necessarily by web publishers. Here the desires of said users and Google align: they both want to see a search result quickly.
- adrianratnapala 9y ago
  How much of this is actual desire by web publishers, and how much is just collective stupidity. Do they really want their websites to be a hassle to use? To have readers turn away because it doesn't load faster enough, or at all? I think it is more likely that they just higher web-developers, according to some cultural norm about how to select devs and about what features to specify. And those devs choose frameworks according to other cultural norms about what makes a good web framework. They are partly, but not completely constrained in this by the requested features set. The result is bloated JS applications where mere pages are required, but the complexity of the system, and the social inertia is so great that nobody can fix, or even perceive the problem.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    They want their websites to make more money. If this takes some more time to (eventually) load but results in increase of total income, they have all incentives to add the "bloat". You know, boarding a train or a bus could be so much faster if the checking of tickets were not involved.
baddox 9y ago
> wouldn't that mean AMP is not a desired product? Well, kind of, in the same way that common-sense lightweight HTML/CSS/JS pages aren't a desired product for the people who make those decisions on publisher websites.

by avaer 9y ago

brianwawok 9y ago

I want it as a consumer. If AMP went away tomorrow I would just browsing on my phone. Ad blockers are not good enough, and I refuse to fight popups and scroll blockers and blah blah blah in 2017.

Tom4hawk 9y ago
Maybe it's time to change websites you visit? If website is actively trying to prevent me from reading it I just don't do that. If you are a publisher and think that you need AMP than it only means that your website sucks big time.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  Go look at the hackernews frontpage. A good 90% of the links are to crap. Totally impossible to read on a phone. If all I wanted to do was read hacker news comments I would be safe..

nine_k 9y ago

It's desired by the (non-paying) users, but not necessarily by web publishers. Here the desires of said users and Google align: they both want to see a search result quickly.

adrianratnapala 9y ago
How much of this is actual desire by web publishers, and how much is just collective stupidity. Do they really want their websites to be a hassle to use? To have readers turn away because it doesn't load faster enough, or at all? I think it is more likely that they just higher web-developers, according to some cultural norm about how to select devs and about what features to specify. And those devs choose frameworks according to other cultural norms about what makes a good web framework. They are partly, but not completely constrained in this by the requested features set. The result is bloated JS applications where mere pages are required, but the complexity of the system, and the social inertia is so great that nobody can fix, or even perceive the problem.
- nine_k 9y ago
  They want their websites to make more money. If this takes some more time to (eventually) load but results in increase of total income, they have all incentives to add the "bloat". You know, boarding a train or a bus could be so much faster if the checking of tickets were not involved.

baddox 9y ago

> wouldn't that mean AMP is not a desired product? Well, kind of, in the same way that common-sense lightweight HTML/CSS/JS pages aren't a desired product for the people who make those decisions on publisher websites.