3 ms·

I'm sorry. I don't get this hatred for amp. Amp is not the problem here. The problem is that we accept third party JavaScript on every page on our monetized web

by mcny 9y ago

I'm sorry. I don't get this hatred for amp. Amp is not the problem here. The problem is that we accept third party JavaScript on every page on our monetized website. From what I understand, you can completely self-host and be amp-compliant. Is that not the case? If you care about user experience, you should not let the highest bidder* run JavaScript on your website on your user's devices. Demand your ad network that they provide ads that are just text and images. Demand your ad network to host that text and those images themselves with a reliably low latency and so on. Or better yet, remove the advertising if you care about user experience. If you are a news organization and Google won't let you be in a certain section without serving on Google, complain. My understanding is that AMP exists to solve a problem. It obviously isn't the only way to solve that problem.

lucideer 9y ago
> From what I understand, you can completely self-host and be amp-compliant. Is that not the case? I don't believe this is the case, no. Unless how AMP works has significantly changed recently, it requires your site to be hosted on, and served from, Google's servers. This hosting is called "AMP Cache". When AMP first launched, Google's servers were the only available "AMP Cache". They have since added the ability to set up your own AMP Cache, which seems like some attempt to appease people's concerns with AMP being Google-only, but doing so seems an utterly pointless enterprise because of the below (from AMP's docs): > How do I choose an AMP Cache? > As a publisher, you don't choose an AMP Cache, it's actually the platform that links to your content that chooses the AMP Cache (if any) to use. So if you set up your own AMP Cache, this just means your site will be hosted on Google's servers, and served from Google search results on Google's, and probably noone will ever visit the copy on your own AMP Cache server.
- pgeorgi 9y ago
  The idea of additional AMP cache servers is that bing, yahoo, facebook, twitter, ... could set them up for their outbound links, so they can implement the same preloading behavior as an optimization (since they tend to have servers that are closer to users, and the connection already exists and can be reused). Think of the Google AMP cache as an extended web site snippet on the google.com search, not as your primary delivery mechanism: To make this safe and useful for all parties (publisher, user, link service providers such as google search or twitter), AMP defines an html/css/js subset that is considered safe but still functional - so that (for example) analytics can still be made to work, which is important to publishers, but without working in the AMP cache hoster's domain context, which is important for their security. Another AMP cache provider is Bing: https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-the-amp-open-source-effort https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-...

by mcny 9y ago

lucideer 9y ago

> From what I understand, you can completely self-host and be amp-compliant. Is that not the case? I don't believe this is the case, no. Unless how AMP works has significantly changed recently, it requires your site to be hosted on, and served from, Google's servers. This hosting is called "AMP Cache". When AMP first launched, Google's servers were the only available "AMP Cache". They have since added the ability to set up your own AMP Cache, which seems like some attempt to appease people's concerns with AMP being Google-only, but doing so seems an utterly pointless enterprise because of the below (from AMP's docs): > How do I choose an AMP Cache? > As a publisher, you don't choose an AMP Cache, it's actually the platform that links to your content that chooses the AMP Cache (if any) to use. So if you set up your own AMP Cache, this just means your site will be hosted on Google's servers, and served from Google search results on Google's, and probably noone will ever visit the copy on your own AMP Cache server.

pgeorgi 9y ago
The idea of additional AMP cache servers is that bing, yahoo, facebook, twitter, ... could set them up for their outbound links, so they can implement the same preloading behavior as an optimization (since they tend to have servers that are closer to users, and the connection already exists and can be reused). Think of the Google AMP cache as an extended web site snippet on the google.com search, not as your primary delivery mechanism: To make this safe and useful for all parties (publisher, user, link service providers such as google search or twitter), AMP defines an html/css/js subset that is considered safe but still functional - so that (for example) analytics can still be made to work, which is important to publishers, but without working in the AMP cache hoster's domain context, which is important for their security. Another AMP cache provider is Bing: https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-the-amp-open-source-effort https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-...