5 ms·

> who actually wants AMP and why is it even a thing? AMP is a standard that restricts webpages to a subset known to load very quickly, which is especially usef

by Zarel 9y ago

> who actually wants AMP and why is it even a thing? AMP is a standard that restricts webpages to a subset known to load very quickly, which is especially useful if you have a mobile device, or are in a country with poor internet such as in the USA. Here in this thread are people talking about how much they like AMP from a user's perspective. > Why can't Chrome just prefetch shit from the actual servers The linked article answers this: for privacy reasons. > and let ISPs handle the caching? HTTPS does not allow ISP-level caching. This is generally a good thing; I trust ISPs significantly less than I trust Google. > Why does mother Google need to serve me all the content from...? Performance, presumably. > I know everyone working on AMP means well but why why why does Google insist on destroying the internet and entirely undermining TLS in the process? I don't think they're doing that.

lifthrasiir 9y ago
I know AMP has some good purposes, but the correct response should have been to discourage site owners doing stupid things. Google has sufficient power to force them, having done a similar thing for HTTPS (not to say that it's necessarily appropriate, but frankly not so much different from AMP in terms of the amount of abusing).
pjmlp 9y ago
> AMP is a standard that restricts webpages to a subset known to load very quickly, which is especially useful if you have a mobile device, or are in a country with poor internet such as in the USA. It is called HTML/CSS with zero JavaScript. Quite fast in dial up modems.
grey-area 9y ago
AMP is a standard that restricts webpages to a subset known to load very quickly, which is especially useful if you have a mobile device, or are in a country with poor internet such as in the USA. That's not all it does. No-one would object to it if that was all it does. The more important part is that it hijacks content and serves it from other servers, and requires including a js file from a large corp in every page. That's a massive vulnerability waiting to happen, but it also gives complete control of the web to whoever controls that js. They need to ditch the requirement for js, and ditch the requirement for framing with Google junk around pages. The web is an open ecosystem, that's its strength. Also, google should not be using their influence in search to push changes which are profitable for them - that's abusing their monopoly position.
- dcow 9y ago
  Exactly. Either you believe companies act altruistically, or this is a power play by Google.
- Zarel 9y ago
  I never said it was all it does. It's the reason AMP exists, and the reason certain users like it. The "hijacks content" part is by itself unobjectionable, especially with this latest update we're discussing which fixes the URL bar issue. The other server will serve a checksum so Google can't tamper with the contents. That makes it just a free CDN. Is the problem that you do not want Google to see your content at all? You'll need to use robots.txt to ban Googlebot. You can't simultaneously want to appear in Google search results and also not let Google see your website. The required JavaScript is legitimately frustrating, I know. The AMP project has an article about why they did it that way: https://medium.com/@cramforce/why-amp-html-does-not-take-full-advantage-of-the-preload-scanner-7e7f788aa94e https://medium.com/@cramforce/why-amp-html-does-not-take-ful... Specifically, it's to prioritize resource loads. I personally don't think their explanation is very convincing. But whatever, maybe it's easier for them to do it this way or something. I don't think Google is doing it to push changes which are profitable for them, though. I legitimately believe they're doing it to make the pages load faster and otherwise be better for the users. I don't even understand how it could be profitable in any other way.
  - grey-area 9y ago
    I never said it was all it does. It's the reason AMP exists, and the reason certain users like it. Strategically, for google, owning the frame around the web and a bit of js on each web page is vastly more valuable than customers having faster web pages. So no, speeding up web pages is not why AMP exists.

by Zarel 9y ago

lifthrasiir 9y ago

I know AMP has some good purposes, but the correct response should have been to discourage site owners doing stupid things. Google has sufficient power to force them, having done a similar thing for HTTPS (not to say that it's necessarily appropriate, but frankly not so much different from AMP in terms of the amount of abusing).

pjmlp 9y ago

> AMP is a standard that restricts webpages to a subset known to load very quickly, which is especially useful if you have a mobile device, or are in a country with poor internet such as in the USA. It is called HTML/CSS with zero JavaScript. Quite fast in dial up modems.

grey-area 9y ago

AMP is a standard that restricts webpages to a subset known to load very quickly, which is especially useful if you have a mobile device, or are in a country with poor internet such as in the USA. That's not all it does. No-one would object to it if that was all it does. The more important part is that it hijacks content and serves it from other servers, and requires including a js file from a large corp in every page. That's a massive vulnerability waiting to happen, but it also gives complete control of the web to whoever controls that js. They need to ditch the requirement for js, and ditch the requirement for framing with Google junk around pages. The web is an open ecosystem, that's its strength. Also, google should not be using their influence in search to push changes which are profitable for them - that's abusing their monopoly position.

dcow 9y ago
Exactly. Either you believe companies act altruistically, or this is a power play by Google.
Zarel 9y ago
I never said it was all it does. It's the reason AMP exists, and the reason certain users like it. The "hijacks content" part is by itself unobjectionable, especially with this latest update we're discussing which fixes the URL bar issue. The other server will serve a checksum so Google can't tamper with the contents. That makes it just a free CDN. Is the problem that you do not want Google to see your content at all? You'll need to use robots.txt to ban Googlebot. You can't simultaneously want to appear in Google search results and also not let Google see your website. The required JavaScript is legitimately frustrating, I know. The AMP project has an article about why they did it that way: https://medium.com/@cramforce/why-amp-html-does-not-take-full-advantage-of-the-preload-scanner-7e7f788aa94e https://medium.com/@cramforce/why-amp-html-does-not-take-ful... Specifically, it's to prioritize resource loads. I personally don't think their explanation is very convincing. But whatever, maybe it's easier for them to do it this way or something. I don't think Google is doing it to push changes which are profitable for them, though. I legitimately believe they're doing it to make the pages load faster and otherwise be better for the users. I don't even understand how it could be profitable in any other way.
- grey-area 9y ago
  I never said it was all it does. It's the reason AMP exists, and the reason certain users like it. Strategically, for google, owning the frame around the web and a bit of js on each web page is vastly more valuable than customers having faster web pages. So no, speeding up web pages is not why AMP exists.