12 ms·

The particularly gross thing about the AMP project is Google's abuse of the concept of open source to recruit volunteer technical labor to implement their anti-

The particularly gross thing about the AMP project is Google's abuse of the concept of open source to recruit volunteer technical labor to implement their anti-FB corporate strategy. It's just corporate astroturfing. AMP is obviously conceived, funded, and implemented by Google and its employees. If you squinted your eyes and tilted your head just right you could see a "good for the web" angle with faster mobile pages. But AMP for email & AMP Stories have nothing to do with making the web faster, it's just another part of Google's attempt to essentially fork the web & control the platform so they can compete with Facebook by shoehorning FB/IG/Messenger features on to the web (Instant Articles, Stories, Carousels, "interactive" email etc). That's bad in and of itself, and for Google to present its corporate strategy as an "open source" project so it can enlist the help of volunteers and those passionate about the web is disingenuous in the extreme. There are far more worthy projects that could use volunteer help than a $750 billion company's corporate strategy. Further thoughts here: https://twitter.com/lukestevens/status/963905898895699968 https://twitter.com/lukestevens/status/963905898895699968

refulgentis 9y ago
If only I had a nickel for every online commenter who swore up and down that no one else implements or supports AMP, and then uses that to justify claiming Google is trying to fork the web...all major platforms pursuing end-arounds mobile ad garbage, _except_ Facebook and Apple, use and contribute to AMP. Anyways, I'm just happy to finally have usable web results on mobile.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  People's participation in AMP isn't voluntary. They have to implement and support AMP, or they get penalized by Google Search.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jyaif 9y ago
    Bing, Cloudfare.
    - nine_k 9y ago
      They sure exist! But Google's search has like 4/5 of the market. If you optimize for the bottom line (as a business should), what will you pay most attention to?
      - JeremyBanks 9y ago
        I think his point was that Bing implemented AMP voluntarily, without being pressured as you suggest publishers were: 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-...
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Bing's primary pressure is a need to compete performance wise with Google. The fact that the implementation is bad doesn't mean they don't need to match on the metrics.
        so33 9y ago
        To play devil’s advocate: the reason Bing can implement their own AMP cache and conform to AMP pages so easily is because AMP is an open project.
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Nobody said the problem was AMP's code being available. The issue is the way Google is forcing their framework's dominance using their search monopoly.
        JoshMnem 9y ago
        Does Bing host the pages on their own servers? Hosting your content on their servers could be a motivation for joining. If Google is going to appify your websites on their own servers, then Microsoft doesn't want to be left out. They can both put giant back buttons on your website that take you back to the search engine results instead of deeper into the website.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  And Facebook only isn't participating because they are instead doing the same thing in a less-open way with Instant Articles.
- lukestevens 9y ago
  Who conceived of AMP Stories? Who conceived of AMP in Email? What do they even have to do with "Accelerated Mobile Pages"? My irritation with AMP is also driven by the fact it's not usable for me. Reader mode is often broken in iOS which is a particularly egregious regression. URLs are obviously broken. And sometimes sites can't even get text-on-a-page right with their AMP versions: https://twitter.com/lukestevens/status/963910460796936192 https://twitter.com/lukestevens/status/963910460796936192
- guelo 9y ago
  > finally have usable web results on mobile. Weird, I've been reading web results on mobile for over a decade.
- nixpulvis 9y ago
  AMP makes it faster (maybe) but the experience is worse. I copy URLs a lot to share, and a fucking AMP link doesn't even navigate and requires a different means of finding the actual URL... garbage.
ravenstine 9y ago
> AMP is obviously conceived, funded, and implemented by Google and its employees. If you squinted your eyes and tilted your head just right you could see a "good for the web" angle with faster mobile pages. An idea predicated on a lie can only go downhill. Engineers need to, as best they can, convince product owners that AMP in any form is a poison apple.
- tyingq 9y ago
  I wonder if Google's AMP team is truly drowning in the Kool aid or if they actually know what's going on, but keep quiet for job security reasons.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    You should read back on some of the older threads here on HN where AMP is heralded as the best thing Google has done in a long time.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      I have, but the comments I read were from the AMP lead, who I assume has fully drunk the Kool aid since they probably signed up for that job. I'm more curious about his/her team members. Google hires smart people. I assume they are free thinkers. Edit: I'm pretty vocal in those old threads calling out AMP as a walled garden play, FWIW. I remember AOL's early days.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Smart people with mortgages at valley rates seem to get a lot less smart when they are looking at their own contributions.
        TrickyRick 9y ago
        Doesn't the valley work much like every other tech hub in the world, i.e. if you lose your job in the morning you can start a new job somewhere else sometime after lunch? Especially with a place like Google on your resumé.
skybrian 9y ago
re: "abuse of the concept of open source to recruit volunteer technical labor" I'm pretty sure any programmers working on AMP at this point have heard the criticism (since it's repeated every time AMP comes up) and know what they're doing. They just disagree.
- ebbv 9y ago
  I would wager most programmers implementing AMP don’t feel they have a choice. Either they need to do it for SEO purposes or they need to do it because project managers say so it for SEO purposes. That’s kind of the whole reason AMP is bad.
  - skybrian 9y ago
    The grandparent was criticizing people who contribute to the AMP open source project. Even if it's getting a bug fixed to make your own site work, would it be better for it to be closed source?
    - gcb0 9y ago
      why do you think they are not the same? only contributed because my employer was lockedin into using AMP for the perverse SEO incentive.
    - lukestevens 9y ago
      I understand people can contribute with their eyes open; that's fine. People volunteer bug reports (for e.g.) to paid software all the time, open source or not. My criticism was actually of Google soliciting those contributions in the first place. "Open source" is just a useful fiction in this case: what would a fork of AMP even do? It does however make the project corporately palatable to others that might want to implement it (i.e. Microsoft/Bing), plus it attracts unpaid contributions to fix the work of Google's highly paid engineers ("Building the future web, together."). The former might be necessary but the latter is extremely problematic IMO. Google could have set up AMP as an independent W3C group (for e.g.) at arms length from its competitive interests, but it didn't, and recent AMP product announcements show us why.
JoshMnem 9y ago
> If you squinted your eyes and tilted your head just right you could see a "good for the web" angle with faster mobile pages. AMP is much slower if you don't allow your browser to load JavaScript from 3rd party sources. It literally takes 8 seconds for my browser to display AMP pages. (Try it if you don't believe me.) AMP is also slower than optimizing it yourself.
- kurthr 9y ago
  I dream of 8 seconds :^) Really, I regularly get broken links on an android phone from Google News. It's hilarious to watch it try and resolve, if the article is more than 15min old. A direct link to the article just works. New links work. I'm guessing it's something similar to what you describe...
  - Shoothe 9y ago
    I also experienced White Screens of AMP Death where only the AMP header was visible, not the page content. For what it's worth the white screen loaded pretty fast :)

refulgentis 9y ago

If only I had a nickel for every online commenter who swore up and down that no one else implements or supports AMP, and then uses that to justify claiming Google is trying to fork the web...all major platforms pursuing end-arounds mobile ad garbage, _except_ Facebook and Apple, use and contribute to AMP. Anyways, I'm just happy to finally have usable web results on mobile.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
People's participation in AMP isn't voluntary. They have to implement and support AMP, or they get penalized by Google Search.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Jyaif 9y ago
  Bing, Cloudfare.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    They sure exist! But Google's search has like 4/5 of the market. If you optimize for the bottom line (as a business should), what will you pay most attention to?
    - JeremyBanks 9y ago
      I think his point was that Bing implemented AMP voluntarily, without being pressured as you suggest publishers were: 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-...
      - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Bing's primary pressure is a need to compete performance wise with Google. The fact that the implementation is bad doesn't mean they don't need to match on the metrics.
        so33 9y ago
        To play devil’s advocate: the reason Bing can implement their own AMP cache and conform to AMP pages so easily is because AMP is an open project.
        ocdtrekkie 9y ago
        Nobody said the problem was AMP's code being available. The issue is the way Google is forcing their framework's dominance using their search monopoly.
      - JoshMnem 9y ago
        Does Bing host the pages on their own servers? Hosting your content on their servers could be a motivation for joining. If Google is going to appify your websites on their own servers, then Microsoft doesn't want to be left out. They can both put giant back buttons on your website that take you back to the search engine results instead of deeper into the website.
dragonwriter 9y ago
And Facebook only isn't participating because they are instead doing the same thing in a less-open way with Instant Articles.
lukestevens 9y ago
Who conceived of AMP Stories? Who conceived of AMP in Email? What do they even have to do with "Accelerated Mobile Pages"? My irritation with AMP is also driven by the fact it's not usable for me. Reader mode is often broken in iOS which is a particularly egregious regression. URLs are obviously broken. And sometimes sites can't even get text-on-a-page right with their AMP versions: https://twitter.com/lukestevens/status/963910460796936192 https://twitter.com/lukestevens/status/963910460796936192
guelo 9y ago
> finally have usable web results on mobile. Weird, I've been reading web results on mobile for over a decade.
nixpulvis 9y ago
AMP makes it faster (maybe) but the experience is worse. I copy URLs a lot to share, and a fucking AMP link doesn't even navigate and requires a different means of finding the actual URL... garbage.

ravenstine 9y ago

> AMP is obviously conceived, funded, and implemented by Google and its employees. If you squinted your eyes and tilted your head just right you could see a "good for the web" angle with faster mobile pages. An idea predicated on a lie can only go downhill. Engineers need to, as best they can, convince product owners that AMP in any form is a poison apple.

tyingq 9y ago
I wonder if Google's AMP team is truly drowning in the Kool aid or if they actually know what's going on, but keep quiet for job security reasons.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  You should read back on some of the older threads here on HN where AMP is heralded as the best thing Google has done in a long time.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    I have, but the comments I read were from the AMP lead, who I assume has fully drunk the Kool aid since they probably signed up for that job. I'm more curious about his/her team members. Google hires smart people. I assume they are free thinkers. Edit: I'm pretty vocal in those old threads calling out AMP as a walled garden play, FWIW. I remember AOL's early days.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      Smart people with mortgages at valley rates seem to get a lot less smart when they are looking at their own contributions.
      - TrickyRick 9y ago
        Doesn't the valley work much like every other tech hub in the world, i.e. if you lose your job in the morning you can start a new job somewhere else sometime after lunch? Especially with a place like Google on your resumé.

skybrian 9y ago

re: "abuse of the concept of open source to recruit volunteer technical labor" I'm pretty sure any programmers working on AMP at this point have heard the criticism (since it's repeated every time AMP comes up) and know what they're doing. They just disagree.

ebbv 9y ago
I would wager most programmers implementing AMP don’t feel they have a choice. Either they need to do it for SEO purposes or they need to do it because project managers say so it for SEO purposes. That’s kind of the whole reason AMP is bad.
- skybrian 9y ago
  The grandparent was criticizing people who contribute to the AMP open source project. Even if it's getting a bug fixed to make your own site work, would it be better for it to be closed source?
  - gcb0 9y ago
    why do you think they are not the same? only contributed because my employer was lockedin into using AMP for the perverse SEO incentive.
  - lukestevens 9y ago
    I understand people can contribute with their eyes open; that's fine. People volunteer bug reports (for e.g.) to paid software all the time, open source or not. My criticism was actually of Google soliciting those contributions in the first place. "Open source" is just a useful fiction in this case: what would a fork of AMP even do? It does however make the project corporately palatable to others that might want to implement it (i.e. Microsoft/Bing), plus it attracts unpaid contributions to fix the work of Google's highly paid engineers ("Building the future web, together."). The former might be necessary but the latter is extremely problematic IMO. Google could have set up AMP as an independent W3C group (for e.g.) at arms length from its competitive interests, but it didn't, and recent AMP product announcements show us why.

JoshMnem 9y ago

> If you squinted your eyes and tilted your head just right you could see a "good for the web" angle with faster mobile pages. AMP is much slower if you don't allow your browser to load JavaScript from 3rd party sources. It literally takes 8 seconds for my browser to display AMP pages. (Try it if you don't believe me.) AMP is also slower than optimizing it yourself.

kurthr 9y ago
I dream of 8 seconds :^) Really, I regularly get broken links on an android phone from Google News. It's hilarious to watch it try and resolve, if the article is more than 15min old. A direct link to the article just works. New links work. I'm guessing it's something similar to what you describe...
- Shoothe 9y ago
  I also experienced White Screens of AMP Death where only the AMP header was visible, not the page content. For what it's worth the white screen loaded pretty fast :)