6 ms·
I feel like this constant anti-AMP rhetoric has extraordinarily little to do with users, and primarily are web developers who don't like that AMP rolls back a l
by endorphone 9y ago
I feel like this constant anti-AMP rhetoric has extraordinarily little to do with users, and primarily are web developers who don't like that AMP rolls back a lot of abuses. The argument isn't just "I don't like AMP", it's "No one should like AMP!" and it grows tiresome.
- chickenfries 9y ago> At the same time I understand that a lot of users DO like AMP content. I completely respect their right to enjoy it. But it would be nice if Twitter provided an option to opt-out from that experience for those who don’t. - TFA
- endorphone 9y agoRight. This person is saying "The last time I bitched on AMP it got hyped, so here it is again". I'm not talking about the author. I'm talking about the crowds on here that vigorously vote up everything anti-AMP.
- chickenfries 9y agoYou're arguing against an imaginary group of mindless AMP haters instead of the actual group of people very concerned with the far reaching implications of AMP on the open web. If it's not your concern, move on.
- endorphone 9y agoNo, I'm against the actual group on here, having seen this argument play out multiple times. I am not concerned about the implications of AMP, have a long history with the web, and think it is an arguably correct reaction to help protect the "open web". It is impossible to have a rational discussion on here, however, as so many are so viciously anti-AMP.
- akras14 9y agoI bitch about AMP every time it finds an annoying way into my life. I have been bitching about it a lot less, since I disabled it on my site. It was actually a pro AMP article that was posted here and my response to it that "triggered" me to bitch again. https://www.alexkras.com/some-thoughts-on-amp-in-conde-nast/ https://www.alexkras.com/some-thoughts-on-amp-in-conde-nast/
- endorphone 9y agoIt plays to the crowd. I get it, and I'd do the same. Your original argument was that you purposefully enabled and published AMP on your site and then complained that Google `stole' your content, which normally would elicit groans and criticism on a technology site, but it played to the crowd. I'd keep playing that tune as long as people will listen.
- akras14 9y agoDon't worry, I got my fair share of criticism. I had no clue what AMP was when I first enabled it, all I heard was that it might help my site rank better and I was sold. I should have RTFM and never enabled it, but it's not how it played out.
- jeremy7600 9y agoSo, your problems were of your own making. Got it.
- akras14 9y agoYes, and I am very explicit about it from the beginning. Mainly to make sure others don't make the same mistakes.
- om2 9y agoInstead of arguing against the actual positions claimed, you're arguing against what you imagine are people's motivations.
- fatjokes 9y ago+1. As a user, I love AMP and don't understand the fuss.
- akras14 9y agoHow would you feel if Twitter turned off the support for format that you liked, AMP in your case, even though that format was readily available, and instead forced you to use some other format you don't like? Regular web pages is the format that I personally prefer to interact with.
- mikeash 9y agoI dislike it because it breaks scrolling, sometimes breaks completely (Reddit pages never load under AMP for me, so there's always an extra tap needed, for example), and provides essentially no benefit. Yes, they load faster, you can make pages load quickly without it.
- akras14 9y agoYou are right, it has more to do with it not being inline with the ideas of the open web, and not liking the prospects of where this can take us.
- endorphone 9y agoAn open standard, used by multiple parties (e.g. many services now consume AMP content), based upon HTML, consumable by just about everyone. That's about as open web as it gets. Secondly, I think the biggest strawman is this notion that it's AMP vs some conceptual "open web". That open web you like has much more formidable competitors and was the reason AMP appeared.
- k__ 9y agoHosted on google servers?
- endorphone 9y agoScripts pulled from cdn.ampproject.org. Should they be long cached on the browser? Should the browser hot replace references? Etc etc etc. There are a lot of interesting, beneficial discussions that can and should take place about this notion of a "lite" web, but instead it all gets short circuited with a losing defiance. The most tiresome is the recurring proclamation that it isn't really faster because you could technically abide by the same limitations, which completely misses the point.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoThere are a million amazing discussions that could be had, but there’s little point in starting that when the existing implementation is so rotten.
- s17n 9y agoThe cache architecture is open, so that anybody (eg, Twitter) can run their own AMP cache.
- tdeck 9y agoMy biggest problem with AMP, as a user with low vision, is that it's impossible to zoom in on images in AMP pages. I have of course checked the box in Chrome (Brave) to force enable zoom, but somehow AMP overrides that because AMP knows best that a detailed infographic or photo of a document should be no wider than my phone's display.
- cramforce 9y agoAMP does not do anything in this direction, and certainly not on purpose. If it does please file a bug. We'll treat it as high priority. Note, that at the beginning of the developer preview 2 years ago, AMP did do something like this, but it was quickly fixed.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoNo, that’s never the argument I’ve seen. It’s always been fairly well accepted that fast pages are good and AMP helps to make pages fast. The common argument - one which I unreservedly agree with - is that pages could be made fast without the use of AMP and especially the web-breaking nature of Google’s implementation. The fact that users like AMP is not material - the problems that it causes are not ones they are going to see in the short term.
- endorphone 9y agoBut the common argument is nonsensical. Yes of course sites could make non-abusive, readable content. But they don't. The non-stickiness of the web, coupled with a low attention span of users, has yielded a sort of tragedy of the commons. AMP is a standard to say "this can't do that". We should have an HTMLite of the sort like AMP. Like how Google Gears became a variety of accepted web standards, it should build into something rather than the nonsensical claim that it does nothing.
- matthewmacleod 9y agoThat’s fine. I agree; “HTML-lite” is fine, and most of AMP is even an acceptable implementation of that concept. But in practice, the way AMP is used has fundamental problems. Like the fact that content is hosted by a third party, or that links are broken, or that scrolling is wrecked. I like the speed of AMP; the implementation is catastrophic and I wish dearly that I could disable its appearance in Google search results.
- akras14 9y ago+1 would love to see HTML light, and that's why I initially assumed AMP to be. Edit: Now that I think about it, Twitter does try to use AMP as HTML light, since they don't use the cache. Yet I think AMP is does not make a great HTML light, likely because it has to support the cache use case.
- hdhzy 9y ago> ... I wish dearly that I could disable its appearance in Google search results. You can if you use https://encrypted.google.com https://encrypted.google.com
- LoSboccacc 9y agoConsidrng AMP fucks with sharing links, deep linking etc it's a huge step back to wap era. It rolls back a decade of responsive innovation.
- tyingq 9y agoEnjoy your trojan horse. I agree it is pretty. Edit: If you can't see the progression, look up this history of froogle. For starters, publishers are accepting a banner that takes up the most valuable space and features an [X] button that goes straight to Google. Worse if your page is in the carousel. And, it gets worse from here. They will tweak the UI over time...it's not your site. It's theirs. Eventually, this turns into an AOLesque private interweb.