8 ms·
Some publishers are fighting AMP with “View Full Experience” link
- amiga-workbench 9y agoIf by full experience do they mean locking my browser up with JavaScript? A lot of these sites really deserve AMP, the normal viewing experience is awful.
- m-p-3 9y agoSome do, but it should nonetheless be easy for the reader to go back to the non-AMP version of they wish.
- jacquesm 9y agoIf there is one thing that is reliant on JS it is AMP.
- maxencecornet 9y ago>If there is one thing that is reliant on JS it is AMP. ...? AMP literally remove JS scripts from the served page..
- TeMPOraL 9y agoBy replacing them with AMP-specific scripts that are required for the page to show.
- amiga-workbench 9y agoYes, but its lightweight enough to not have my browser stutter while scrolling, and continue scrolling for several seconds after I stop. I cannot say the same for most news websites.
- CaptSpify 9y agoThe problem that AMP is solving is very real. The issue is that AMP is solving it in the worst way possible. Instead of using this as a ploy to force traffic to stay within Google's ecosystem, Google should encourage sites to just slim down their excessive pages.
- ttctciyf 9y agoIt's real for some, but not an issue for others. Google's ill-intent is evident from their continued lack of interest in providing a user-controllable setting to turn it on or off, despite strenuous multiple complaints going back to almost the inception of the technology.
- matz1 9y agoThat is publisher problem, as reader I don't care if traffic has to stay within Google's ecosystem.
- CaptSpify 9y agoYou should. Google already has too much control, and they are already abusing it. Additionally, they are the ones encouraging sites to become what they are today.
- akras14 9y agoI experimented and it looks like they do show full article, they just show the button at the end. Perhaps the article in the post was a developing story. Still interesting, but not as much "fighting" going on as it seemed on first sight.
- eksu 9y agoThis has been how most Apple News stories have worked for a while. I wonder if it's the same page generation for Apple News as AMP?
- aphextron 9y agoThe most frustrating thing for me about AMP is that it sidesteps the single most useful feature of Safari on iOS, the "Reader" button, by rendering the entire page in JS. I suspect this is entirely purposeful on Google's part as it cuts into ad views. It's really gotten out of hand, too. Try doing a google search for practically any news article on mobile now. The entire first few result pages are nothing but AMP.
- d4l3k 9y agoAMP is a standard. If anything it should be easier to convert into a reader view than just arbitrary HTML. It'd be easy to add support into Safari, they just haven't bothered.
- calcifer 9y ago> AMP is a standard. That's news to me. Can you link to a standards body recognizing AMP as a standard? Or did you simply mean "standard" as in an advertising company dumping some self-serving specs on some website?
- d4l3k 9y agoGuess specification might be a less controversial term. Just saying that it's strictly defined, and easier to implement alternate native renderers for (eg Safari's reader) than raw HTML.
- josteink 9y agoSo is RSS and that's an actual standard. But how many non-HTML formats should a browser really need to support? And why should we accept that big companies can shove non-standards down our throats on public internet?
- Spivak 9y agoI don't think we should just accept it but the reason is because Google effectively controls the web. If Google implementes a feature then either everyone else follows suit or loses another user to Chrome. No other company has that kind of leverage.
- msh 9y agoI understand why people don't like amp but most publishers experience is so bad that amp is better.
- HugThem 9y agoUsually I hate every additional button. But anything that fights AMP is good. AMP is one of the biggest threats to the open internet at the moment. Any numbers on how much traffic a news publisher loses out if they flat out refuse the AMP blackmail and don't offer an AMP version? We the tech crowd should help publishers to come up with creative ideas to subvert AMP. I wonder if it would work to only show 50% of the article and then have a link "Read the full article on our website". If a publisher had a great mobile experience, they could get even more aggressive about it. Like have a big disclaimer on top of the page "We have a great mobile website. Unfortunately Google blackmailed us to give them our content. You are currently reading a Google version of our site that we had to make because Google is hiding the open web in their search results. If you want to read the original, click here. If you want to try a search engine that searches the open web, try one of these: ..."
- tannhaeuser 9y agoIt's time for the European Commission to step in on AMP. You can complain about Google's anti-competitive behaviour anonymously on http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/whistleblower/index.html http://ec.europa.eu/competition/cartels/whistleblower/index.... (though this instrument is rather for mailing insider info, so I guess submissions should be for individual cases where AMP results are hiding other content).
- revelation 9y agoThe link to the whistleblower tool served over HTTP, what a great idea.
- stingraycharles 9y agoThe actual form / complaint are served over https, as you can see in the link.
- irth 9y agobut someone can replace the link to the form
- rblatz 9y agoSo to speed up the web Google now makes me load a hobbled AMP page then I have to search for a link to actually get to the site I actually wanted to go to. How is this better? It's gotten to the point that I search for something and just give up since it's a sea of worthless AMP links.
- SimonPStevens 9y agoWant to know how to entirely avoid amp... Use Firefox on your phone. ;-)
- tannhaeuser 9y agoSo much this. I've been using FF mobile for years now, and if AMP hadn't negative coverage on HN regularly, I would've no idea what's the deal with this AMP thing, much less AMP links flooding search results.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoIt also lets you add an ad-blocker, so that's another reason to use Firefox on mobile :).
- StavrosK 9y agoNot only that, it lets you use the sake ad blocker as the desktop browser. uBlock origin, privacy badger, etc.
- w33ble 9y agoOr, if you'd prefer to keep your browser of choice, just use a different search engine.
- akras14 9y agoDoesn't work on iPhone unfortunately
- whyagaindavid 9y agoHI I see that you have constant opposition to AMP because it renders badly on iphone. Do you know how expensive is DATA here in 3rd world? Native websites, force people to load trackers + install stupid apps (no space in a 4GB android phone). Please once try to get a cheap android phone and you will realize how good AMP is for us to read news. Example visit: ndtv.com indiatimes.com Seriously, please I am not for support Google. Please do not tell me to buy used iphone to get privacy which also costs $200 (2 months salary). You need a mac to create a "apple-email" account (which costs 4months salary). I am not a troll supporting Google. I have in my cheap Moto E (pure LineageOS - NO Google Play) works for 2 days without charge. I too hope Google will open up more, but privacy for rich is not fine. We, the poor, need technology even if it means Google puts AMP. Why are you happy that apple puts walled garden? You have a choice to use a different OS or phone or browser? In linux, even uploading to iPhotos is NOT possible? icloud/ical/Mail all work terrible - try it once. I am sorry.
- ttctciyf 9y agoI've searched a few times for a firefox plugin that would simply remove the 'amp=1' from twitter links, thinking it should be trivial enough to guarantee its existence, but no luck. Anyone know if I missed it somewhere?
- gkya 9y agoMaybe a GreaseMonkey userscript would do? Tho because all twitter links are t.co ones,it may be a bit tricky.
- diggan 9y agoSlightly off-topic, but feel like someone here has the answer so asking anyways. People keep mentioning that AMP is a "open effort" and "open source" but I've only seen the HTML framework's code, not the caching servers. Supposedly, you are able to run your own AMP Cache server, but there are no examples out in the wild. I even took to Twitter and asked Paul Bakaus ("Open" Web Developer Advocate at Google) who wrote a blogpost about why AMP Cache is good, but no answer. Is the AMP really a open project or is that just the HTML Framework and the goal is to lock people into Google's AMP Cache?
- josteink 9y ago> Is the AMP really a open project or is that just the HTML Framework and the goal is to lock people into Google's AMP Cache? It's Google. Whenever you ask that question and fail to find proof about openness, it should be fairly safe to assume that it's a lock-in.
- lucaspiller 9y agoThe idea/technology is open, so if Twitter or Facebook wanted they could run their own AMP service, so when you click a link on their site it loads the AMP version of the BBC served from their servers. That's still not really open, but this is kind of the purpose of AMP.
- diggan 9y ago> The idea/technology is open I keep seeing that phrase but then > so if Twitter or Facebook wanted they could run their own AMP service seems "idea/technology is open" only applies if you're Twitter or Facebook. How about if I'm just me? I can't run my own AMP cache seemingly...
- dtech 9y agoThere is nothing preventing you from doing so. But there is no reason for you to do so. For Twitter and Facebook it is more interesting since they can serve the cache to their users.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agohttps://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/ https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/ if you're ignorant of this like me.
- nlawalker 9y agoThis is a decent technical overview, but it completely sidesteps the sole reason why publishers actually use AMP, and the reason many people dislike it so much, which is that AMP results get put in the special carousel at the top of Google results.
- nlawalker 9y agoNo one is "fighting" AMP here, this is just trying to get the best of both worlds - high result placement and a cached first impression that drives traffic to the actual site. I wonder what the reaction of the AMP team is. "But... but you can't do that!"
- brainfire 9y agoAmusingly, the loading time for the "full experience" is long enough that it's cut off in the video. I think that says everything needed about the "full experience" on the web in 2017.
- Angostura 9y agoSurely, if publishers wanted to fight AMP, they wouldn't implement AMP - or am I missing something here?
- aeharding 9y agoGoogle promotes AMP sites on search results. They have no choice.