5 ms·

So basically Google could get 90% of what AMP provides without AMP itself, because the magic is in the caching and forcibly reducing the ad junk the page loads.

So basically Google could get 90% of what AMP provides without AMP itself, because the magic is in the caching and forcibly reducing the ad junk the page loads. Does that about sum it up?

notatoad 9y ago
Yes, except how do you propose to implement caching and stripping out the ad junk without AMP?
- gcb0 9y ago
  with free market! now, seriously, I do that just fine with an ad blocker.
- manigandham 9y ago
  Make performance (not AMP) matter in search rankings and websites would immediately start getting faster.
  - rifung 9y ago
    I believe it already does actually (I work at Google but not in search so I could be wrong but I believe they talked about this during orientation)
    - SquareWheel 9y ago
      Speed has been a ranking factor in desktop SERPs for years. It was only recently announced as a ranking factor for mobile too (but we knew it was coming).
  - timothya 9y ago
    See: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2018/01/using-page-speed-in-mobile-search.html https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2018/01/using-page-speed-i...
    - manigandham 9y ago
      Good to see, however this still hasn't started, it's far too late after AMP, and only affects "a small percentage" as quoted. It also doesn't give the special carousel placement in the results page, which is only available via AMP.
- endorphone 9y ago
  HN is seemingly incapable of rationally discussing AMP. AMP solves a very real problem, which is that our web stack is open to enormous abuse because it is sometimes too powerful for its own good. While we could make simple HTML that is as fast (of course we can), the reality is that we don't, and many don't often for tragedy of the commons reasons. And the counter-argument that search rankings should just favor this -- e.g. just promote speedy pages -- ignores that abuse would be absolutely rampant (and the other argument -- just run a layer of ad blockers -- completely misses the point). AMP isn't just an ideal, it's a strict set of enforced restrictions. In previous discussions I've noted that we need an HTML lite to counter AMP, not just the same head-in-the-sand strawmen about how it serves no purpose. An HTML lite that is a mode in the browser, enforced on the DOM and JavaScript. The anti-AMP rhetoric makes it impossible to discuss rationally.
  - ForHackernews 9y ago
    > many don't often for tragedy of the commons reasons. Google are some of the major culprits driving the creation of an unpleasant web experience loaded with tracking and advertising cruft, and now they're pushing this alternative format to supposedly fix the damage they wrought. That's why people are salty about AMP. It's an imperfect analogy, but imagine if some company had torn up the roads near your house by driving their heavy cargo trucks over it, and now you're irritated by the potholes, that same company says, "Great news! If you just buy our special tires and shocks and install them on your car, you'll have a smoother ride with fewer bumps from potholes!"
    - endorphone 9y ago
      Google has pushed speed in virtually everything they've done since day one. Asynchronous, deferred scripts. Always outrageously fast loads. Simple, lightweight ads. They even built a browser to try to push speed. I despise ads, but blaming Google for the situation that we're in is seriously missing the mark. Google wants the web to succeed, for their own selfish reasons. They don't want it to become a wasteland of zombie scripts, cryptomining, pop-overs, and abuse (which tends to be even worse on mobile, as an aside, abusers knowing that mobile users often have fewer tools). They have been pushing pro-web policies since the early days. AMP, as cynical as people can be about it, is one of those.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fastball 9y ago
Which is made clear in the AMP documentation itself. The AMP project isn't pretending they're bringing something unprecedented to the web... they're very open about the fact that most of the things you need to do to make your site "AMP compatible" are just speed-conscious best-practices (like only using CSS transitions that have hardware acceleration, or async loading of assets).
- dmitriid 9y ago
  Let's see how open they are: "The project enables the creation of websites and ads that are consistently fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms." "Web pages and ads published in the AMP open-source format load near instantly, giving users a smooth, more engaging experience on mobile and desktop." That's directly from the AMP's project site. Those statements are half-truths at best.
LoSboccacc 9y ago
yes they basically broken internet the same way it was broken with wap, including broken sharing and deeplinking, for no good reason at all... well except to run amp you need to run it on their resources and all your users are now profiled across all websites...

So basically Google could get 90% of what AMP provides without AMP itself, because the magic is in the caching and forcibly reducing the ad junk the page loads. Does that about sum it up?

notatoad 9y ago

Yes, except how do you propose to implement caching and stripping out the ad junk without AMP?

gcb0 9y ago
with free market! now, seriously, I do that just fine with an ad blocker.
manigandham 9y ago
Make performance (not AMP) matter in search rankings and websites would immediately start getting faster.
- rifung 9y ago
  I believe it already does actually (I work at Google but not in search so I could be wrong but I believe they talked about this during orientation)
  - SquareWheel 9y ago
    Speed has been a ranking factor in desktop SERPs for years. It was only recently announced as a ranking factor for mobile too (but we knew it was coming).
- timothya 9y ago
  See: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2018/01/using-page-speed-in-mobile-search.html https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2018/01/using-page-speed-i...
  - manigandham 9y ago
    Good to see, however this still hasn't started, it's far too late after AMP, and only affects "a small percentage" as quoted. It also doesn't give the special carousel placement in the results page, which is only available via AMP.
endorphone 9y ago
HN is seemingly incapable of rationally discussing AMP. AMP solves a very real problem, which is that our web stack is open to enormous abuse because it is sometimes too powerful for its own good. While we could make simple HTML that is as fast (of course we can), the reality is that we don't, and many don't often for tragedy of the commons reasons. And the counter-argument that search rankings should just favor this -- e.g. just promote speedy pages -- ignores that abuse would be absolutely rampant (and the other argument -- just run a layer of ad blockers -- completely misses the point). AMP isn't just an ideal, it's a strict set of enforced restrictions. In previous discussions I've noted that we need an HTML lite to counter AMP, not just the same head-in-the-sand strawmen about how it serves no purpose. An HTML lite that is a mode in the browser, enforced on the DOM and JavaScript. The anti-AMP rhetoric makes it impossible to discuss rationally.
- ForHackernews 9y ago
  > many don't often for tragedy of the commons reasons. Google are some of the major culprits driving the creation of an unpleasant web experience loaded with tracking and advertising cruft, and now they're pushing this alternative format to supposedly fix the damage they wrought. That's why people are salty about AMP. It's an imperfect analogy, but imagine if some company had torn up the roads near your house by driving their heavy cargo trucks over it, and now you're irritated by the potholes, that same company says, "Great news! If you just buy our special tires and shocks and install them on your car, you'll have a smoother ride with fewer bumps from potholes!"
  - endorphone 9y ago
    Google has pushed speed in virtually everything they've done since day one. Asynchronous, deferred scripts. Always outrageously fast loads. Simple, lightweight ads. They even built a browser to try to push speed. I despise ads, but blaming Google for the situation that we're in is seriously missing the mark. Google wants the web to succeed, for their own selfish reasons. They don't want it to become a wasteland of zombie scripts, cryptomining, pop-overs, and abuse (which tends to be even worse on mobile, as an aside, abusers knowing that mobile users often have fewer tools). They have been pushing pro-web policies since the early days. AMP, as cynical as people can be about it, is one of those.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

fastball 9y ago

Which is made clear in the AMP documentation itself. The AMP project isn't pretending they're bringing something unprecedented to the web... they're very open about the fact that most of the things you need to do to make your site "AMP compatible" are just speed-conscious best-practices (like only using CSS transitions that have hardware acceleration, or async loading of assets).

dmitriid 9y ago
Let's see how open they are: "The project enables the creation of websites and ads that are consistently fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms." "Web pages and ads published in the AMP open-source format load near instantly, giving users a smooth, more engaging experience on mobile and desktop." That's directly from the AMP's project site. Those statements are half-truths at best.

LoSboccacc 9y ago

yes they basically broken internet the same way it was broken with wap, including broken sharing and deeplinking, for no good reason at all... well except to run amp you need to run it on their resources and all your users are now profiled across all websites...