8 ms·

You 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 ago
An 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 ago
  Hosted on google servers?
  - endorphone 9y ago
    Scripts 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 ago
      There 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 ago
    The cache architecture is open, so that anybody (eg, Twitter) can run their own AMP cache.
    - diggan 9y ago
      Is it though? Spent the last hours trying to find this open architecture but all I can find are API reference but no actual standard or examples...
- emn13 9y ago
  It's a lot less open than html; and the development is clearly steered by platform companies, and thus is unsurprisingly biased in their favor, over that of lots of other stakeholders. I don't think AMP would have a snowflakes chance in hell to succeed on it's own merits. It's success now is due to SERP-based strongarming by Google. Given how simple it is load quickly, I think its inexplicable that AMP is so complex and its development so closed.
  - notatoad 9y ago
    What exactly is the benefit that these platform companies derive from AMP? Last time i asked the claim was that google gets some "tracking" benefit by serving the amp.js file the pages have to include, which seems unlikely but whatever. But for Twitter, or Bing, or any other platform that is preferring to link to AMP pages over full-featured HTML, what is the benefit? It can't be tracking for them, they aren't hosting the amp.js file. The only possible benefit I can see for Twitter to link to AMP is that their testing proves users prefer AMP pages, meaning a better user experience is result when "development is clearly steered by platform companies". When you say AMP is biased in the platform companies favour, what you really mean is it is biased in the user's favour. As we've seen with the state of the non-amp mobile web, it's not simple to load quickly. Maybe it's simple to implement if that is your goal, but convincing all the involved stakeholders that it's a worthwhile goal is hard, and so the mobile web is slow as hell. The open web had their chance to make fast sites, and failed. So now an industry-led carrot-and-stick style approach is being used, and it's actually working. pages load fast now. And the HN Community, who is responsible for making a lot of those slow sites ("oh! let's load another three analytics platforms, it's only a couple megs") is angry.
    - gregable 9y ago
      Note also that due to browser caching, Google wouldn't even get some sort of "tracking benefit" if they wanted to. Most of these documents do not trigger an actual browser request for these javascript files. Also, if the webmaster wants, they can simply add `rel=noreferrer` to the script tags. This is still considered valid by the AMP Validator.
    - 9y ago
s17n 9y ago
The real crime against the open web is twitter (and google, and facebook...) replacing all their links with t.co redirects.
- akras14 9y ago
  Agreed
- majewsky 9y ago
  The biggest frustration comes when Twitter forces me onto t.co which redirects to analytics.twitter.com, which is rendered dysfunctional by my network-level adblocker.

endorphone 9y ago

An 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 ago
Hosted on google servers?
- endorphone 9y ago
  Scripts 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 ago
    There 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 ago
  The cache architecture is open, so that anybody (eg, Twitter) can run their own AMP cache.
  - diggan 9y ago
    Is it though? Spent the last hours trying to find this open architecture but all I can find are API reference but no actual standard or examples...
emn13 9y ago
It's a lot less open than html; and the development is clearly steered by platform companies, and thus is unsurprisingly biased in their favor, over that of lots of other stakeholders. I don't think AMP would have a snowflakes chance in hell to succeed on it's own merits. It's success now is due to SERP-based strongarming by Google. Given how simple it is load quickly, I think its inexplicable that AMP is so complex and its development so closed.
- notatoad 9y ago
  What exactly is the benefit that these platform companies derive from AMP? Last time i asked the claim was that google gets some "tracking" benefit by serving the amp.js file the pages have to include, which seems unlikely but whatever. But for Twitter, or Bing, or any other platform that is preferring to link to AMP pages over full-featured HTML, what is the benefit? It can't be tracking for them, they aren't hosting the amp.js file. The only possible benefit I can see for Twitter to link to AMP is that their testing proves users prefer AMP pages, meaning a better user experience is result when "development is clearly steered by platform companies". When you say AMP is biased in the platform companies favour, what you really mean is it is biased in the user's favour. As we've seen with the state of the non-amp mobile web, it's not simple to load quickly. Maybe it's simple to implement if that is your goal, but convincing all the involved stakeholders that it's a worthwhile goal is hard, and so the mobile web is slow as hell. The open web had their chance to make fast sites, and failed. So now an industry-led carrot-and-stick style approach is being used, and it's actually working. pages load fast now. And the HN Community, who is responsible for making a lot of those slow sites ("oh! let's load another three analytics platforms, it's only a couple megs") is angry.
  - gregable 9y ago
    Note also that due to browser caching, Google wouldn't even get some sort of "tracking benefit" if they wanted to. Most of these documents do not trigger an actual browser request for these javascript files. Also, if the webmaster wants, they can simply add `rel=noreferrer` to the script tags. This is still considered valid by the AMP Validator.
  - 9y ago

s17n 9y ago

The real crime against the open web is twitter (and google, and facebook...) replacing all their links with t.co redirects.

akras14 9y ago
Agreed
majewsky 9y ago
The biggest frustration comes when Twitter forces me onto t.co which redirects to analytics.twitter.com, which is rendered dysfunctional by my network-level adblocker.