3 ms·

I don't understand how you see AMP pages representing a standard web? AMP represents the complete opposite of web standards and anything to remove it from the w

by cylo 9y ago

I don't understand how you see AMP pages representing a standard web? AMP represents the complete opposite of web standards and anything to remove it from the web leaves us all better off.

Sargos 9y ago
Not AMP per se but just how Apple make sweeping changes by fiat without soliciting feedback that affect how standard technologies are used throughout the web. This is just another move they've made that will force whole industries to adapt for no reason other than Apple wanted to do it.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  While that can be a bad thing, in this specific case it is curtailing a similar abusive overreach by google, and IMO a good thing. You can use exactly the same arguement you made against AMP, I don't see negating AMP as some great evil.
  - wutbrodo 9y ago
    Yea it's really rare for me to interpret a situation as Apple making a pro-consumer move and Google being anti-consumer[1], but here we are. [1] or more charitably appealing to a subset of users at high cost to a non-trivial fractions of other users
- yladiz 9y ago
  Google created it to consolidate control of content on their platform to get people to get used to a specific UI provided by Google. There are other companies that hold caches, but the design and implementation is essentially chosen by Google (note that the fact that the AMP privacy policy just leads to the Google privacy policy). I can completely understand why Apple would want to get rid of it -- it adds a Google UI to the article that otherwise wouldn't have it and it isn't necessary to see the content. Edit: clarified about AMP usage and Google's involvement.
  - benmarten 9y ago
    thats not true. amp is a collection of best practices to speed up the web!
    - mallaidh 9y ago
      Amp doesn't bring anything new to the table in terms of best practices, what is new is agglomerating even more online content under Google's control via caching. Lightweight page design never became impossible, it's simply that most websites couldn't care less about investing work into improvements.
    - kuschku 9y ago
      It is? So how do I get the advantages in Google search (being ranked in the carousel right above the top result) without running the official JS from Google’s CDN? I can’t even use the JS from a local CDN.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > The only company that I know of that uses AMP is Google Google and Micorosft (Bing) have caches. I think Twitter does to (they definitely use AMP). Lots of other social media and other platforms use and highlight AMP content, and I think there are a couple other big players with caches, too. It's definitely not just Google.
    - yladiz 9y ago
      I'll edit it to say that Google is the gatekeeper, not the only ones that hold caches.
- fredoliveira 9y ago
  Do you know what AMP is? How it is used? In this case Apple is literally helping you and publishers not get screwed. I think you need to read up on AMP, because seeing the words 'standard technologies' and 'AMP' in the same comment in that way is extremely awkward.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > In this case Apple is literally helping you and publishers not get screwed. I'm not getting screwed by AMP, and neither, AFAICT, are publishers.
  - Sargos 9y ago
    My comment is focused on Apple's behavior and not AMP specifically. I do know how AMP works. I don't like how Apple unilaterally changes the way that things work (even if that means AMP) without regard to any other parties.
    - MBCook 9y ago
      What about when google unilaterally change the way lots of websites work by forcing AMP down my throat? They have the biggest search engine by far. They have the most popular mobile OS by far. But it's Apple you're mad at?
madeofpalk 9y ago
Opposite of web standards? It's HTTP+HTML+JS+CSS. What part of AMP isn't standards compliant?
- slackingoff2017 9y ago
  The AMP client source is available but worthless. Google validates that you're running their blessed version of the framework and if you change a single bit in the files Google doesn't serve your AMP content anymore. It's a classic walled garden, like the Android app store. You can develop Android apps that don't meet their guidelines but you can't distribute them through normal channels.
  - Larrikin 9y ago
    The Play Store is pretty liberal in what they allow, more so than the Apple App store atleast.
  - madeofpalk 9y ago
    Right, so its closed source? Still standards compliant.
- grey-area 9y ago
  What part of AMP isn't standards compliant? The part that mandates including js from a corporation on your pages.
  - madeofpalk 9y ago
    Yes, using a javascript framework requires you to have that javascript on your page.
- matt4077 9y ago
  OP is complaining about Safari not supporting the most recent APIs, whereas AMP supports only an extremely limited subset of all those technologies. But I believe the larger issue is how it makes URL meaningless, and futures a centralisation of the web. It's not against the standard, but certainly the spirit of the web as it was supposed to be.

by cylo 9y ago

I don't understand how you see AMP pages representing a standard web? AMP represents the complete opposite of web standards and anything to remove it from the web leaves us all better off.

Sargos 9y ago

Not AMP per se but just how Apple make sweeping changes by fiat without soliciting feedback that affect how standard technologies are used throughout the web. This is just another move they've made that will force whole industries to adapt for no reason other than Apple wanted to do it.

throwaway2048 9y ago
While that can be a bad thing, in this specific case it is curtailing a similar abusive overreach by google, and IMO a good thing. You can use exactly the same arguement you made against AMP, I don't see negating AMP as some great evil.
- wutbrodo 9y ago
  Yea it's really rare for me to interpret a situation as Apple making a pro-consumer move and Google being anti-consumer[1], but here we are. [1] or more charitably appealing to a subset of users at high cost to a non-trivial fractions of other users
yladiz 9y ago
Google created it to consolidate control of content on their platform to get people to get used to a specific UI provided by Google. There are other companies that hold caches, but the design and implementation is essentially chosen by Google (note that the fact that the AMP privacy policy just leads to the Google privacy policy). I can completely understand why Apple would want to get rid of it -- it adds a Google UI to the article that otherwise wouldn't have it and it isn't necessary to see the content. Edit: clarified about AMP usage and Google's involvement.
- benmarten 9y ago
  thats not true. amp is a collection of best practices to speed up the web!
  - mallaidh 9y ago
    Amp doesn't bring anything new to the table in terms of best practices, what is new is agglomerating even more online content under Google's control via caching. Lightweight page design never became impossible, it's simply that most websites couldn't care less about investing work into improvements.
  - kuschku 9y ago
    It is? So how do I get the advantages in Google search (being ranked in the carousel right above the top result) without running the official JS from Google’s CDN? I can’t even use the JS from a local CDN.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The only company that I know of that uses AMP is Google Google and Micorosft (Bing) have caches. I think Twitter does to (they definitely use AMP). Lots of other social media and other platforms use and highlight AMP content, and I think there are a couple other big players with caches, too. It's definitely not just Google.
  - yladiz 9y ago
    I'll edit it to say that Google is the gatekeeper, not the only ones that hold caches.
fredoliveira 9y ago
Do you know what AMP is? How it is used? In this case Apple is literally helping you and publishers not get screwed. I think you need to read up on AMP, because seeing the words 'standard technologies' and 'AMP' in the same comment in that way is extremely awkward.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > In this case Apple is literally helping you and publishers not get screwed. I'm not getting screwed by AMP, and neither, AFAICT, are publishers.
- Sargos 9y ago
  My comment is focused on Apple's behavior and not AMP specifically. I do know how AMP works. I don't like how Apple unilaterally changes the way that things work (even if that means AMP) without regard to any other parties.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    What about when google unilaterally change the way lots of websites work by forcing AMP down my throat? They have the biggest search engine by far. They have the most popular mobile OS by far. But it's Apple you're mad at?

madeofpalk 9y ago

Opposite of web standards? It's HTTP+HTML+JS+CSS. What part of AMP isn't standards compliant?

slackingoff2017 9y ago
The AMP client source is available but worthless. Google validates that you're running their blessed version of the framework and if you change a single bit in the files Google doesn't serve your AMP content anymore. It's a classic walled garden, like the Android app store. You can develop Android apps that don't meet their guidelines but you can't distribute them through normal channels.
- Larrikin 9y ago
  The Play Store is pretty liberal in what they allow, more so than the Apple App store atleast.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  Right, so its closed source? Still standards compliant.
grey-area 9y ago
What part of AMP isn't standards compliant? The part that mandates including js from a corporation on your pages.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  Yes, using a javascript framework requires you to have that javascript on your page.
matt4077 9y ago
OP is complaining about Safari not supporting the most recent APIs, whereas AMP supports only an extremely limited subset of all those technologies. But I believe the larger issue is how it makes URL meaningless, and futures a centralisation of the web. It's not against the standard, but certainly the spirit of the web as it was supposed to be.