5 ms·

Google amp is a blessing on mobile, I don't give a damn't about site owners.

andrewmcwatters 9y ago
No one seems to be up in arms about slow websites. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If AMP and others exist, there's a reason, and it might be more useful to respond to that than to respond to AMP.
- MBCook 9y ago
  There is a reason. Google gives it preferential treatment. That’s not a reason that matters to me at all.
pjmlp 9y ago
Native apps and disabled JavaScript are a blessing on mobile.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Thousand times this. Half of the reason we're in this mess is on-line advertising. The other half is that lots of companies think it's a great idea for everything to require constant data exchange with the cloud.
hartator 9y ago
Except when you want the original link.
- dymk 9y ago
  Every Google AMP link that I've clicked on has a button in the top right corner which displays the original link. It's very easy to copy from, and isn't hidden at all.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    Oh good! They fixed the problem that didn’t used to exist by adding additional steps, all for their benefit. And now they’re trying to get a new standard feature to let them lie about the URL to make it even easier! You know what worked well? 20+ years of the URL bar showing me the site I was trying to read without bikinis messing with it. Also, that was added later. Originally it wasn’t there at all.
    - dymk 9y ago
      > all for their benefit And the benefit of everybody with a mobile device that just wants their article to load quickly. > And now they’re trying to get a new standard feature to let them lie about the URL to make it even easier These are called "engineering tradeoffs". It's not perfect, but it's better than what we had before.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - Lio 9y ago
        This is not an engineering trade off. All mobile users are forced to use AMP. Google could allow opt out of AMP for all those who don't want it in their search results but they don't because they are trying to wall off and control a section of the web.
notatoad 9y ago
yeah, as a user AMP is awesome. Dear website owners who wrote this letter: yes, amp has it's downsides but the reason we have amp is that the internet as a whole failed to make fast sites. you had your chance for the previous ~30 years, and it's clear you couldn't be bothered to make speed a priority. I'm glad you're angry that AMP is eating your lunch, because maybe you'll actually start trying to compete now. But you aren't getting my sympathy.
- cobookman 9y ago
  +1 million It's especially noticable when you have poor service. Amp pages load fine, whereas just about everything else cant load.
- nobleach 9y ago
  The whole point is, Google has shut down the competition. One Google has everyone on "the platform" they now get to mandate new rules. There may as well not BE any more web frameworks. The idea that we "did this to ourselves, and are now getting our just desserts" isn't going to fair well for anyone - not even the user. Google is now the gatekeeper and independent attempts to chip away at that foundation are almost a waste of time.
- guy98238710 9y ago
  Publishers had no (and still have no) motivation to make regular pages fast, because Google won't reward them for their effort with higher traffic. Imagine what headlines like "Google to rank popular content primarily by speed" would do to the web.
miles 9y ago
> I don't give a damn't about site owners. But aren't they the ones creating the content you are enjoying? Seems strange to care so little about them, as without them, there would be no content to enjoy.
- Kalium 9y ago
  There are other publishers. Authors, as distinct from publishers, will find other outlets. Outlets that make my life as a user less miserable. And the net will be a better place.
  - untog 9y ago
    Thing is, those awful, intrusive ads pay more money than AMP pages do. So I wouldn't assume that other publishers will appear, or that authors will be able to make enough to continue writing. How many publications do you subscribe to?
    - Kalium 9y ago
      Me? Several, for which I pay yearly.
    - sesutton 9y ago
      > Thing is, those awful, intrusive ads pay more money than AMP pages do. So I wouldn't assume that other publishers will appear, or that authors will be able to make enough to continue writing. If my only two options are awful intrusive ads or no content, then I'd choose no content.
Aaargh20318 9y ago
I hate it on mobile, it makes Google unusable to me. I had to switch to DDG just because of AMP. Google, please allow me to opt-out of AMP.
- tokenizerrr 9y ago
  Please explain why you hate it?
  - teraflop 9y ago
    Most of the time I don't care one way or another. Occasionally I search Google for Reddit posts on my phone, and it's mildly infuriating to get a bunch of AMP results, because I strongly prefer the desktop UI that I've chosen in my preferences over the default mobile UI that AMP shows.
  - peterwwillis 9y ago
    It actually breaks pages. Not only their functionality but the browser will actually close the page or go back to the search results with amp, and sometimes clicks don't work. It also loads "weird". I almost always have to furiously click the 'link' icon on top to load the real page, because the page was designed to load under real-world conditions, not through a web proxy. Aside: from a privacy perspective it creeped me the hell out once I realized what was happening.
  - j79 9y ago
    Not OP, but the primary issues I'm not a fan (on iOS) are: 1) Performance - Yes, it LOADS fast, but MANY pages "feel" janky, when scrolling, especially pages that allow you to load additional accords by scrolling left/right. Only the simplest pages don't "jank" on my device. 2) Scrolling - It isn't the native scroll. It seems to be a div with "overflow-scrolling" applied. Other than that feeling "off", it prevents the bottom toolbar from hiding, reducing screen real estate. 3) Sharing URLs. 4) Biggest: No way to opt-out. I'm a fan of the open web. It's why I prefer a website to a sandboxed experience you get with native apps. At least for the first click on Google SERP pages, I'm "stuck" with google.com. One note: I get the AMP use case, and I'm sure there are users who prefer AMP pages for the performance they see. However, I'm fortunate enough to live in an area with decent mobile speed/bandwidth, and loading the original pages are rarely "slow" on my device. However, the originals all address the issues I noted above. I'll take the .5-1 second delay for the original(s), over the AMP version.
majani 9y ago
As a publisher, thanks for this blunt answer that cuts through to the crux of the issue. There are supposedly big publishers that have shut down in my country without a single obituary or fond remembrance from users. Sometimes I wonder in this saturated online media world, how many publishers would actually be missed if we all disappeared from the earth. Probably a single digit percentage
Zak 9y ago
I don't like AMP as a user. It breaks sites that I want to open in an app or in the browser with my logged-in session. I also don't like Google hosting the content and giving preference to a specific, consumption-only user experience. I'd probably have a different opinion if I didn't use Adaway, which blocks ad servers by domain in /etc/hosts. When I've tried going without an adblocker, the web was not such a nice place.
Romanulus 9y ago
But they're the reason you're blessing amp on mobile.

No one seems to be up in arms about slow websites. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ If AMP and others exist, there's a reason, and it might be more useful to respond to that than to respond to AMP.

MBCook 9y ago
There is a reason. Google gives it preferential treatment. That’s not a reason that matters to me at all.

pjmlp 9y ago

Native apps and disabled JavaScript are a blessing on mobile.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Thousand times this. Half of the reason we're in this mess is on-line advertising. The other half is that lots of companies think it's a great idea for everything to require constant data exchange with the cloud.

hartator 9y ago

Except when you want the original link.

dymk 9y ago
Every Google AMP link that I've clicked on has a button in the top right corner which displays the original link. It's very easy to copy from, and isn't hidden at all.
- MBCook 9y ago
  Oh good! They fixed the problem that didn’t used to exist by adding additional steps, all for their benefit. And now they’re trying to get a new standard feature to let them lie about the URL to make it even easier! You know what worked well? 20+ years of the URL bar showing me the site I was trying to read without bikinis messing with it. Also, that was added later. Originally it wasn’t there at all.
  - dymk 9y ago
    > all for their benefit And the benefit of everybody with a mobile device that just wants their article to load quickly. > And now they’re trying to get a new standard feature to let them lie about the URL to make it even easier These are called "engineering tradeoffs". It's not perfect, but it's better than what we had before.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Lio 9y ago
      This is not an engineering trade off. All mobile users are forced to use AMP. Google could allow opt out of AMP for all those who don't want it in their search results but they don't because they are trying to wall off and control a section of the web.

notatoad 9y ago

yeah, as a user AMP is awesome. Dear website owners who wrote this letter: yes, amp has it's downsides but the reason we have amp is that the internet as a whole failed to make fast sites. you had your chance for the previous ~30 years, and it's clear you couldn't be bothered to make speed a priority. I'm glad you're angry that AMP is eating your lunch, because maybe you'll actually start trying to compete now. But you aren't getting my sympathy.

cobookman 9y ago
+1 million It's especially noticable when you have poor service. Amp pages load fine, whereas just about everything else cant load.
nobleach 9y ago
The whole point is, Google has shut down the competition. One Google has everyone on "the platform" they now get to mandate new rules. There may as well not BE any more web frameworks. The idea that we "did this to ourselves, and are now getting our just desserts" isn't going to fair well for anyone - not even the user. Google is now the gatekeeper and independent attempts to chip away at that foundation are almost a waste of time.
guy98238710 9y ago
Publishers had no (and still have no) motivation to make regular pages fast, because Google won't reward them for their effort with higher traffic. Imagine what headlines like "Google to rank popular content primarily by speed" would do to the web.

miles 9y ago

> I don't give a damn't about site owners. But aren't they the ones creating the content you are enjoying? Seems strange to care so little about them, as without them, there would be no content to enjoy.

Kalium 9y ago
There are other publishers. Authors, as distinct from publishers, will find other outlets. Outlets that make my life as a user less miserable. And the net will be a better place.
- untog 9y ago
  Thing is, those awful, intrusive ads pay more money than AMP pages do. So I wouldn't assume that other publishers will appear, or that authors will be able to make enough to continue writing. How many publications do you subscribe to?
  - Kalium 9y ago
    Me? Several, for which I pay yearly.
  - sesutton 9y ago
    > Thing is, those awful, intrusive ads pay more money than AMP pages do. So I wouldn't assume that other publishers will appear, or that authors will be able to make enough to continue writing. If my only two options are awful intrusive ads or no content, then I'd choose no content.

Aaargh20318 9y ago

I hate it on mobile, it makes Google unusable to me. I had to switch to DDG just because of AMP. Google, please allow me to opt-out of AMP.

tokenizerrr 9y ago
Please explain why you hate it?
- teraflop 9y ago
  Most of the time I don't care one way or another. Occasionally I search Google for Reddit posts on my phone, and it's mildly infuriating to get a bunch of AMP results, because I strongly prefer the desktop UI that I've chosen in my preferences over the default mobile UI that AMP shows.
- peterwwillis 9y ago
  It actually breaks pages. Not only their functionality but the browser will actually close the page or go back to the search results with amp, and sometimes clicks don't work. It also loads "weird". I almost always have to furiously click the 'link' icon on top to load the real page, because the page was designed to load under real-world conditions, not through a web proxy. Aside: from a privacy perspective it creeped me the hell out once I realized what was happening.
- j79 9y ago
  Not OP, but the primary issues I'm not a fan (on iOS) are: 1) Performance - Yes, it LOADS fast, but MANY pages "feel" janky, when scrolling, especially pages that allow you to load additional accords by scrolling left/right. Only the simplest pages don't "jank" on my device. 2) Scrolling - It isn't the native scroll. It seems to be a div with "overflow-scrolling" applied. Other than that feeling "off", it prevents the bottom toolbar from hiding, reducing screen real estate. 3) Sharing URLs. 4) Biggest: No way to opt-out. I'm a fan of the open web. It's why I prefer a website to a sandboxed experience you get with native apps. At least for the first click on Google SERP pages, I'm "stuck" with google.com. One note: I get the AMP use case, and I'm sure there are users who prefer AMP pages for the performance they see. However, I'm fortunate enough to live in an area with decent mobile speed/bandwidth, and loading the original pages are rarely "slow" on my device. However, the originals all address the issues I noted above. I'll take the .5-1 second delay for the original(s), over the AMP version.

majani 9y ago

As a publisher, thanks for this blunt answer that cuts through to the crux of the issue. There are supposedly big publishers that have shut down in my country without a single obituary or fond remembrance from users. Sometimes I wonder in this saturated online media world, how many publishers would actually be missed if we all disappeared from the earth. Probably a single digit percentage

Zak 9y ago

I don't like AMP as a user. It breaks sites that I want to open in an app or in the browser with my logged-in session. I also don't like Google hosting the content and giving preference to a specific, consumption-only user experience. I'd probably have a different opinion if I didn't use Adaway, which blocks ad servers by domain in /etc/hosts. When I've tried going without an adblocker, the web was not such a nice place.

Romanulus 9y ago

But they're the reason you're blessing amp on mobile.