3 ms·
I hear your argument, but my issue with it is that AMP is in fact open. They're accepting pull requests on Github[1] and other providers have already implemente
by apeace 8y ago
I hear your argument, but my issue with it is that AMP is in fact open. They're accepting pull requests on Github[1] and other providers have already implemented AMP on their own, no Google involved[2].
HN is just bursting with NIH on this issue. I'm not seeing any substantive arguments, no alternatives offered, and no consideration for what users actually want.
This article in particular seems to be droning on about "intentions", "messaging", and "long-term solutions".
To all of HN: if you don't like AMP, shut up and code :)
[1] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml
[2] https://blog.cloudflare.com/accelerated-mobile/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/accelerated-mobile/
- influx 8y agoI would have zero issues with AMP if it wasn't hosted on Google.com.
- dlp211 8y agoAMP can be and is hosted from multiple locations. Anyone can launch an AMP cache.
- throwaway2048 8y agothe issues with amp arent that its not closed source, the issues with amp is that: 1) you either use amp or you lose out massively in google search rank (as in the links that appear at the top of the page, regaurdless of what semantic games you want to identify them with) 2) by using amp, you hand over all your search traffic to google. No amount of "shut up and code" is going to fix this, because it is a business decision by Google, not a technical decision that they are going to entertain arguements about. The open source aspect is a total smokescreen.