6 ms·

AMP is one of a long series of Google's efforts to ensure the web remains competitive with walled gardens and native platforms. Chrome (with the V8 engine), NaC

by sseth 9y ago

AMP is one of a long series of Google's efforts to ensure the web remains competitive with walled gardens and native platforms. Chrome (with the V8 engine), NaCl, SPDY, QUIC, PWA, Dart, Certificate Transparency ... the list goes on and on. Some have succeeded (SPDY became HTTP/2) and some have failed (Dart, NaCl), but it has been consistent at least. Standards cannot become a strait-jacket. In many cases (such as HTTP/2) the standards have come much after the concept was proven. Though Dart and NaCl failed, they triggered improvements in Javascript and also led to WebAssembly. AMP was created as a response to Facebook's Instant Articles. If anyone supports the open web, then it is hard to see how things become better if the web stays stuck as more content moves into walled gardens, or the web remains unusable on mobile phones in large parts of the world. Maybe there is no controversy, because there is no need for one.

SquareWheel 9y ago
Well spoken. Most of these standards have been well-designed and open. People are much too quick to assume malice.
dmitriid 9y ago
AMP is not open web though. It's Google's own walled garden under the guise of an open web.
- sseth 9y ago
  As a javascript library it is pretty much as open as React or any other javascript platform. It is the caching where the discussion lies - effectively Google is providing a CDN for AMP pages and I agree this needs some improvements. But these should in the realm of technical discussions rather than looking for conspiracies.
  - dmitriid 9y ago
    AMP is designed by Google, and implemented almost exclusively by Google. It is also used in the most popular search engine in a way that makes AMP feel like it's fast. Meanwhile: - it's not fast without Google's overpowered cache/CDN (that no one has a chance to replicate) - it's not even valid HTML - it's entire design and development is governed exclusively by Google, with no external input, and all external input is discarded and discouraged. See top comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16455593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16455593 The fact that it lives on GitHub doesn't make it open.
    - SquareWheel 9y ago
      >it's not fast without Google's overpowered cache/CDN (that no one has a chance to replicate) https://amp.cloudflare.com/ https://amp.cloudflare.com/ 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-... >it's not even valid HTML Custom elements are in the WebComponents spec, which is "valid HTML". https://www.webcomponents.org/introduction#custom-elements https://www.webcomponents.org/introduction#custom-elements
      - dmitriid 9y ago
        > Links to other implementations 1. Google dominates search. So other caches are basically irrelevant 2. To create a competing cache you need to make sure Google's search uses that cache and that your cache is big, fast, and powerful enough to pre-render AMP pages on Google scale Which comes back to the original problem: AMP is not fast until someone caches and pre-renders it. > Custom elements are in the WebComponents spec, which is "valid HTML". Will all of you "opponents" please read the article you comment on? Since you can't, here is the six paragraph: > AMP makes up its own standards that break with what is considered valid HTML. Case in point, have a look at how the AMP project’s homepage, which itself is an AMP page, produces over a 100 validation errors You can check it yourself.
        SquareWheel 9y ago
        >Google dominates search. So other caches are basically irrelevant Then why did you ask to see other caches? You're moving the goalposts. >produces over a 100 validation errors By a validator that doesn't understand HTML5. Try your browser - it's a far more advanced version of the validator. You'll find it understands amp pages just fine.
        dmitriid 9y ago
        > Then why did you ask to see other caches? You're moving the goalposts. No goalposts have been moved. Once again. Slowly: ---- quote ----- AMP is designed by Google, and implemented almost exclusively by Google. It is also used in the most popular search engine in a way that makes AMP feel like it's fast. Meanwhile: - it's not fast without Google's overpowered cache/CDN (that no one has a chance to replicate) - it's not even valid HTML ---- end quote ---- You cannot replicate Google's cache for the following reasons: - Google's search is dominant. - Google's search uses and will use Google's own AMP cache. - Google's own AMP cache relies on Google's infrastructure. Even if you create an AMP-compliant cache: - Google will not use it. - It's highly unlikely that you will be able to match its power and speed. How is AMP open and fast again? > By a validator that doesn't understand HTML5. Try your browser Nope. The browser is able to render AMP pages just because the browsers have historically tried to make the best out of shitty HTML. Let's start from the top. Do you know that this is invalid HTML 5? <html :lightning emoji:> HTML5 living standard sections 4.1.1 and 3.2.6. Do you know that this is invalid HTML 5? <script async custom-element="amp-carousel" src=""> HTML5 living standard sections 4.12.1 and 3.2.6. Do you know that this is invalid HTML5? <head> <style amp-boilerplate></style> </head> HTML5 living standard sections 4.2.6 and 3.2.6. Shall I continue? You see, in order to know that it's enough to just stop drinking in Google's propaganda and actually look at what the web has to offer, and how all of this stuff works.
philipwhiuk 9y ago
Neatly ignoring the fact they own and build one of the walled gardens.
- sseth 9y ago
  AMP at the end of the day is an open source javascript library. The pages accessible on AMP via the cache, can also be accessed directly if you want. I don't see this as a walled garden - having a cache does not mean the content is not available outside the cache. Google does not do this out of altruism of course - their margins on web search are much higher than on mobile, and if more and more content exists only in mobile apps and walled gardens they will lose revenue.

by sseth 9y ago

SquareWheel 9y ago

Well spoken. Most of these standards have been well-designed and open. People are much too quick to assume malice.

dmitriid 9y ago

AMP is not open web though. It's Google's own walled garden under the guise of an open web.

sseth 9y ago
As a javascript library it is pretty much as open as React or any other javascript platform. It is the caching where the discussion lies - effectively Google is providing a CDN for AMP pages and I agree this needs some improvements. But these should in the realm of technical discussions rather than looking for conspiracies.
- dmitriid 9y ago
  AMP is designed by Google, and implemented almost exclusively by Google. It is also used in the most popular search engine in a way that makes AMP feel like it's fast. Meanwhile: - it's not fast without Google's overpowered cache/CDN (that no one has a chance to replicate) - it's not even valid HTML - it's entire design and development is governed exclusively by Google, with no external input, and all external input is discarded and discouraged. See top comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16455593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16455593 The fact that it lives on GitHub doesn't make it open.
  - SquareWheel 9y ago
    >it's not fast without Google's overpowered cache/CDN (that no one has a chance to replicate) https://amp.cloudflare.com/ https://amp.cloudflare.com/ 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-... >it's not even valid HTML Custom elements are in the WebComponents spec, which is "valid HTML". https://www.webcomponents.org/introduction#custom-elements https://www.webcomponents.org/introduction#custom-elements
    - dmitriid 9y ago
      > Links to other implementations 1. Google dominates search. So other caches are basically irrelevant 2. To create a competing cache you need to make sure Google's search uses that cache and that your cache is big, fast, and powerful enough to pre-render AMP pages on Google scale Which comes back to the original problem: AMP is not fast until someone caches and pre-renders it. > Custom elements are in the WebComponents spec, which is "valid HTML". Will all of you "opponents" please read the article you comment on? Since you can't, here is the six paragraph: > AMP makes up its own standards that break with what is considered valid HTML. Case in point, have a look at how the AMP project’s homepage, which itself is an AMP page, produces over a 100 validation errors You can check it yourself.
      - SquareWheel 9y ago
        >Google dominates search. So other caches are basically irrelevant Then why did you ask to see other caches? You're moving the goalposts. >produces over a 100 validation errors By a validator that doesn't understand HTML5. Try your browser - it's a far more advanced version of the validator. You'll find it understands amp pages just fine.
        dmitriid 9y ago
        > Then why did you ask to see other caches? You're moving the goalposts. No goalposts have been moved. Once again. Slowly: ---- quote ----- AMP is designed by Google, and implemented almost exclusively by Google. It is also used in the most popular search engine in a way that makes AMP feel like it's fast. Meanwhile: - it's not fast without Google's overpowered cache/CDN (that no one has a chance to replicate) - it's not even valid HTML ---- end quote ---- You cannot replicate Google's cache for the following reasons: - Google's search is dominant. - Google's search uses and will use Google's own AMP cache. - Google's own AMP cache relies on Google's infrastructure. Even if you create an AMP-compliant cache: - Google will not use it. - It's highly unlikely that you will be able to match its power and speed. How is AMP open and fast again? > By a validator that doesn't understand HTML5. Try your browser Nope. The browser is able to render AMP pages just because the browsers have historically tried to make the best out of shitty HTML. Let's start from the top. Do you know that this is invalid HTML 5? <html :lightning emoji:> HTML5 living standard sections 4.1.1 and 3.2.6. Do you know that this is invalid HTML 5? <script async custom-element="amp-carousel" src=""> HTML5 living standard sections 4.12.1 and 3.2.6. Do you know that this is invalid HTML5? <head> <style amp-boilerplate></style> </head> HTML5 living standard sections 4.2.6 and 3.2.6. Shall I continue? You see, in order to know that it's enough to just stop drinking in Google's propaganda and actually look at what the web has to offer, and how all of this stuff works.

philipwhiuk 9y ago

Neatly ignoring the fact they own and build one of the walled gardens.

sseth 9y ago
AMP at the end of the day is an open source javascript library. The pages accessible on AMP via the cache, can also be accessed directly if you want. I don't see this as a walled garden - having a cache does not mean the content is not available outside the cache. Google does not do this out of altruism of course - their margins on web search are much higher than on mobile, and if more and more content exists only in mobile apps and walled gardens they will lose revenue.