6 ms·

(Author here.) I think the AMP brand is toxic roughly everywhere. Many users don't know what AMP is, and don't really care—in fact, there's some evidence that

(Author here.) I think the AMP brand is toxic roughly everywhere. Many users don't know what AMP is, and don't really care—in fact, there's some evidence that users like AMP in search results, or at least they like the performance—but as far as I can see in tech communities like HN and Reddit, the vast majority of people who know what AMP is also know that they hate AMP. (Scroll up and down on this thread a bit!) As for why it's toxic, I don't think we have to agree about that, but it's not just the UI problem. The URL problem (AMP URLs point to google.com instead of the original site) is a real, significant problem in its own right. The URL problem is the root of the claim that "AMP is Google's attempt to take over the open web." IMO, if it were just an iOS scrolling issue, AMP would just be controversial: love the speed, hate the scrolling, eh, it's a wash. But the URL problem is what really gets the flamethrowers running!

lern_too_spel 9y ago
Saying that the URL problem is Google's attempt at taking over the open web is nonsensical. Google's main competitors in large markets, like Microsoft, Yahoo Japan, and Baidu, also implement AMP caches. How does that help any of them fend off any of the others? Each one of them gets to prerender the same provably prerender-friendly pages. I am not an AMP publisher or an AMP developer, but I vastly prefer AMP results, and I suspect my preference lines up with the majority outside of HN, or why else would all these search engines do this?
- tomc1985 9y ago
  > why else would all these search engines do this? if it expands the business in a positive way who cares what users think, right?
- dfabulich 9y ago
  > Saying that the URL problem is Google's attempt at taking over the open web is nonsensical. The point isn't that only Google can use AMP. (I agree that many people incorrectly think that AMP is Google-only.) The point is that with AMP, you've lost control of your web site. The fact that you've lost control not only to Google, but also to Microsoft, Yahoo Japan, and Baidu doesn't help at all!
  - dmitrygr 9y ago
    > The point is that with AMP, you've lost control of your web site. Did I miss the news article "Armed googlers rampaging wildly and threatening all website owners with violence for noncompliance with AMP guidelines"? Who forces you to use amp?
    - donohoe 9y ago
      We are forced by the prominent AMP carousel that shows up in search results that drives meaningful revenue to publishers (but cannibalizes our traffic to the regular page where on a CPM level ads are worth more). If they removed that then AMP would die quickly.
      - dmitrygr 9y ago
        And if environmental regulations were removed, many industries would be better off too (at the cost to the world). As a user I LOVE amp because it loads faster than your crap page and doesn't bug me with interstitials. So yes, if AMP died, you'd better off, at the cost to the users And save me the sob story about how only some publishers suck. I don't care. You all lost our (user) trust with your interstitials and crap ads and sites that took minutes to load. Game over, with many thanks to Google. Our abusive relationship with you is over. We the users hereby walk away and will never take you back. Stomping you feet won't help.
        AlexandrB 9y ago
        > Our abusive relationship with you is over. We the users hereby walk away and will never take you back. Stomping you feet won't help. This is exactly backwards. I don't want an ad company (Google) serving as a middleman for all my web browsing. The most abusive relationship is the one you have little choice in - and Google is such a huge portion of the web that it's nearly impossible to avoid. Now Google is leveraging the inroads they made with AMP in the web to force it into email as well. To borrow your analogy, this is like letting Exxon Mobil set the environmental regulations for everyone.
- jotto 9y ago
  AMP is like Amazon's listing of 3rd party merchants' products. It's great for consumers in the short-term but commodifies businesses into an informational API for Google's UX. > why else would all these search engines do this? because lower latency increases user activity and search volume The question you aren't asking is: "What are the long term implications to the ecosystem when Google controls the UX for all 3rd party data?"
  - tomc1985 9y ago
    > because lower latency increases user activity and search volume more importantly, it reduces bounce and helps conversion. neither of which matter much to users...
- JoshMnem 9y ago
  They each get to put a giant back button on the top of your site that takes you back to the search results instead of deeper into your site. If Google is going to steamroll over independent websites, then the others want in on the action too. If they don't jump in, links to "your website" will all point to google.com rather than the other companies' domains.
basch 9y ago
>in tech communities like HN and Reddit, the vast majority of people who know what AMP is also know that they hate AMP. which is an extremely tiny portion of people clicking links on the internet.
- leereeves 9y ago
  I've seen a lot of people in less tech savvy communities ask why a non-Google URL points to Google. They don't know what AMP is but they've encountered the URL problem.
- dfabulich 9y ago
  I'm not saying that a significant portion of the world population hates AMP. I'm saying: take the extremely tiny portion of people who have heard of AMP, and then estimate how many of them like AMP or dislike AMP. AMP's detractors are few in number, but they overwhelm AMP's supporters, who are even fewer in number.
  - eli 9y ago
    AMP has a mostly positive reputation in the world of digital publishers--and they definitely know what it is. I've heard from people at two different publishers that the decline in traffic due to the recent Facebook algorithm update has almost been made up by a dramatic increase in Google traffic to AMP pages. (see https://www.axios.com/google-traffic-explodes-doubling-down-on-mobile-news-ad69c8ec-b44e-4d63-8995-a3e6869e8002.html https://www.axios.com/google-traffic-explodes-doubling-down-...) The main complaint I hear is that AMP pages are pain in the ass to produce, not anything about walled gardens or canonical URLs. Consider that most of the people making decisions are weighing AMP strategically against FB Instant Pages.
    - donohoe 9y ago
      No. As someone who works in media/publishing I’m gonna disagree there. I can speak for colleagues across many publishers too. Within the industry it’s hated. There are implications for ad revenue too that I’m not going to go into here. Don’t get me wrong, some love it but more hate it - for a variety of reasons.
ihsw2 9y ago
Tech person here, I think AMP is the bee's knees and it should be shoved down media creators' throats. Media property owners have shoved garbage down our throats, complained when we installed ad-blockers to keep from being damaged, and this is sweet revenge. I'm more than happy to admit that some icon in search results (not the AMP icon as that's already in use) should highlight performant websites but it should be held to as high of a standard (if not higher) than what AMP expects and revoked swiftly when the offending site strays from the expected standards.
tyingq 9y ago
What's not to like about giving up control of the most important part of your page to a third party? Digg tried it, worked well for them. /s
Ajedi32 9y ago
They're actually going to fix the URL problem once and for all using [Cross-Origin Server Push][1] in the upcoming Signed HTTP Exchanges standard. Here's their blogpost on that: https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-amp-pages/ https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-... [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses-02#section-4 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed...
- ThbTs4wbXC9Qjv 9y ago
  The standard authored by J. Yasskin from Google? Self-serving their own interests much?
  - ec109685 9y ago
    And every other site that links off.
- dfabulich 9y ago
  (Author here.) The "Signed HTTP Exchanges standard" is part of the Web Packaging standard, which is, indeed, the whole point of the article. https://github.com/WICG/webpackage https://github.com/WICG/webpackage

lern_too_spel 9y ago

Saying that the URL problem is Google's attempt at taking over the open web is nonsensical. Google's main competitors in large markets, like Microsoft, Yahoo Japan, and Baidu, also implement AMP caches. How does that help any of them fend off any of the others? Each one of them gets to prerender the same provably prerender-friendly pages. I am not an AMP publisher or an AMP developer, but I vastly prefer AMP results, and I suspect my preference lines up with the majority outside of HN, or why else would all these search engines do this?

tomc1985 9y ago
> why else would all these search engines do this? if it expands the business in a positive way who cares what users think, right?
dfabulich 9y ago
> Saying that the URL problem is Google's attempt at taking over the open web is nonsensical. The point isn't that only Google can use AMP. (I agree that many people incorrectly think that AMP is Google-only.) The point is that with AMP, you've lost control of your web site. The fact that you've lost control not only to Google, but also to Microsoft, Yahoo Japan, and Baidu doesn't help at all!
- dmitrygr 9y ago
  > The point is that with AMP, you've lost control of your web site. Did I miss the news article "Armed googlers rampaging wildly and threatening all website owners with violence for noncompliance with AMP guidelines"? Who forces you to use amp?
  - donohoe 9y ago
    We are forced by the prominent AMP carousel that shows up in search results that drives meaningful revenue to publishers (but cannibalizes our traffic to the regular page where on a CPM level ads are worth more). If they removed that then AMP would die quickly.
    - dmitrygr 9y ago
      And if environmental regulations were removed, many industries would be better off too (at the cost to the world). As a user I LOVE amp because it loads faster than your crap page and doesn't bug me with interstitials. So yes, if AMP died, you'd better off, at the cost to the users And save me the sob story about how only some publishers suck. I don't care. You all lost our (user) trust with your interstitials and crap ads and sites that took minutes to load. Game over, with many thanks to Google. Our abusive relationship with you is over. We the users hereby walk away and will never take you back. Stomping you feet won't help.
      - AlexandrB 9y ago
        > Our abusive relationship with you is over. We the users hereby walk away and will never take you back. Stomping you feet won't help. This is exactly backwards. I don't want an ad company (Google) serving as a middleman for all my web browsing. The most abusive relationship is the one you have little choice in - and Google is such a huge portion of the web that it's nearly impossible to avoid. Now Google is leveraging the inroads they made with AMP in the web to force it into email as well. To borrow your analogy, this is like letting Exxon Mobil set the environmental regulations for everyone.
jotto 9y ago
AMP is like Amazon's listing of 3rd party merchants' products. It's great for consumers in the short-term but commodifies businesses into an informational API for Google's UX. > why else would all these search engines do this? because lower latency increases user activity and search volume The question you aren't asking is: "What are the long term implications to the ecosystem when Google controls the UX for all 3rd party data?"
- tomc1985 9y ago
  > because lower latency increases user activity and search volume more importantly, it reduces bounce and helps conversion. neither of which matter much to users...
JoshMnem 9y ago
They each get to put a giant back button on the top of your site that takes you back to the search results instead of deeper into your site. If Google is going to steamroll over independent websites, then the others want in on the action too. If they don't jump in, links to "your website" will all point to google.com rather than the other companies' domains.

basch 9y ago

>in tech communities like HN and Reddit, the vast majority of people who know what AMP is also know that they hate AMP. which is an extremely tiny portion of people clicking links on the internet.

leereeves 9y ago
I've seen a lot of people in less tech savvy communities ask why a non-Google URL points to Google. They don't know what AMP is but they've encountered the URL problem.
dfabulich 9y ago
I'm not saying that a significant portion of the world population hates AMP. I'm saying: take the extremely tiny portion of people who have heard of AMP, and then estimate how many of them like AMP or dislike AMP. AMP's detractors are few in number, but they overwhelm AMP's supporters, who are even fewer in number.
- eli 9y ago
  AMP has a mostly positive reputation in the world of digital publishers--and they definitely know what it is. I've heard from people at two different publishers that the decline in traffic due to the recent Facebook algorithm update has almost been made up by a dramatic increase in Google traffic to AMP pages. (see https://www.axios.com/google-traffic-explodes-doubling-down-on-mobile-news-ad69c8ec-b44e-4d63-8995-a3e6869e8002.html https://www.axios.com/google-traffic-explodes-doubling-down-...) The main complaint I hear is that AMP pages are pain in the ass to produce, not anything about walled gardens or canonical URLs. Consider that most of the people making decisions are weighing AMP strategically against FB Instant Pages.
  - donohoe 9y ago
    No. As someone who works in media/publishing I’m gonna disagree there. I can speak for colleagues across many publishers too. Within the industry it’s hated. There are implications for ad revenue too that I’m not going to go into here. Don’t get me wrong, some love it but more hate it - for a variety of reasons.

ihsw2 9y ago

Tech person here, I think AMP is the bee's knees and it should be shoved down media creators' throats. Media property owners have shoved garbage down our throats, complained when we installed ad-blockers to keep from being damaged, and this is sweet revenge. I'm more than happy to admit that some icon in search results (not the AMP icon as that's already in use) should highlight performant websites but it should be held to as high of a standard (if not higher) than what AMP expects and revoked swiftly when the offending site strays from the expected standards.

tyingq 9y ago

What's not to like about giving up control of the most important part of your page to a third party? Digg tried it, worked well for them. /s

Ajedi32 9y ago

They're actually going to fix the URL problem once and for all using [Cross-Origin Server Push][1] in the upcoming Signed HTTP Exchanges standard. Here's their blogpost on that: https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-amp-pages/ https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/01/09/improving-urls-for-... [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses-02#section-4 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed...

ThbTs4wbXC9Qjv 9y ago
The standard authored by J. Yasskin from Google? Self-serving their own interests much?
- ec109685 9y ago
  And every other site that links off.
dfabulich 9y ago
(Author here.) The "Signed HTTP Exchanges standard" is part of the Web Packaging standard, which is, indeed, the whole point of the article. https://github.com/WICG/webpackage https://github.com/WICG/webpackage