4 ms·

I'm still kind of confused as to why people dislike AMP. I thought it was just meant to be a fast subset of HTML, which allows for small, fast, cacheable pages?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
inimino 9y ago
It's not a subset of HTML, it's a system of delivering content that happens to shift some control from producers to Google. Producers had disregarded users' interests for too long with increasingly bloated pages. Google was able to benefit both itself and users by cutting the bloat, but because the solution comes at the cost of further centralization, it's seen as part of the general erosion of the open and decentralized web.
- mezzode 9y ago
  AMP content is still hosted by the producers though isn't it? If people are concerned by it being "centralised" due to Google caching the pages, shouldn't they also be concerned about CDNs like Akamai? Or am I missing something important?
  - franga2000 9y ago
    The problem is, that you never leave Google's domain. Even if the content is hosted somewhere else, you are accessing it through an iframe on a Google domain. But without looking at the URL bar, you don't even know it, as there is no Google logo or anything. Not to mention, that it's a terrible user experience. The AMP header takes up a big part of your screen height and often causes browser URL bars not to hide, taking up even more. Add the site header and you barely have any space left for the content. And it's even worse on old devices - they have to render the Google page and the iframe inside it. This makes them much slower than if Google just let you access the page directly.
    - mezzode 9y ago
      I'm not sure that being hosted on Google's domain is inherently a bad thing, given the ubiquity of CDNs, but the others are definitely fair points. If I'm understanding everything, AMP still seems like a good idea, it's just implementation details which can be problematic.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

inimino 9y ago

It's not a subset of HTML, it's a system of delivering content that happens to shift some control from producers to Google. Producers had disregarded users' interests for too long with increasingly bloated pages. Google was able to benefit both itself and users by cutting the bloat, but because the solution comes at the cost of further centralization, it's seen as part of the general erosion of the open and decentralized web.

mezzode 9y ago
AMP content is still hosted by the producers though isn't it? If people are concerned by it being "centralised" due to Google caching the pages, shouldn't they also be concerned about CDNs like Akamai? Or am I missing something important?
- franga2000 9y ago
  The problem is, that you never leave Google's domain. Even if the content is hosted somewhere else, you are accessing it through an iframe on a Google domain. But without looking at the URL bar, you don't even know it, as there is no Google logo or anything. Not to mention, that it's a terrible user experience. The AMP header takes up a big part of your screen height and often causes browser URL bars not to hide, taking up even more. Add the site header and you barely have any space left for the content. And it's even worse on old devices - they have to render the Google page and the iframe inside it. This makes them much slower than if Google just let you access the page directly.
  - mezzode 9y ago
    I'm not sure that being hosted on Google's domain is inherently a bad thing, given the ubiquity of CDNs, but the others are definitely fair points. If I'm understanding everything, AMP still seems like a good idea, it's just implementation details which can be problematic.