5 ms·

AMP is in two parts: the HTML/JS spec, and the Google implementation and cache. Putting aside the Google bits, is there a case against building within the AMP

AMP is in two parts: the HTML/JS spec, and the Google implementation and cache. Putting aside the Google bits, is there a case against building within the AMP HTML and JS spec? Or is the case against all down to Google's ownership of the project? On my iPhone AMP is frustratingly buggy: rotation doesn't work properly, the URL bar doesn't disappear on scroll, Reader mode works inconsistently, etc. But these seem like issues with Google's cache and hosting, not the spec.

wmf 8y ago
The concern is that Google can unilaterally change the spec any way they want, so even if it's fine now it may get worse in the future.
- karmelapple 8y ago
  I think OP was sort of getting at the idea of AMP becoming a standard owned externally to google. But the likelihood of that happening seems... low.
  - sverhagen 8y ago
    Wouldn't that be an excellent solution for Google to silence the critics? (Excellent for them, not for us.) Donate the whole thing to a non-profit like Apache, who barely have the manpower to do more than host it, then still regain control by having many of the contributors on payroll?
    - cliffordthedog 8y ago
      Probably, but I doubt they even do that. Is google the worst company around when it comes to this sort of almost faux open source?
    - wmf 8y ago
      The real complaints are not about AMP per se but about Google's market power, so it's not clear that Google can do anything to satisfy critics. (Even splitting search into a separate company would still leave that company as a monopoly.)
mattmanser 8y ago
So, we spent ages getting to where everyone agreed on standards and they were correctly implemented. Google are now making new standards which don't conform to the agreed standard, which restrict how you can build your site. If you don't do it, they'll destroy your traffic. AMP is text book Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. No ad network but the Google ad network allowed. We're sleep walking back into the same thing MS did 30 years ago, with Google this time. They really have just lived long enough to become the villain.
- EdwardDiego 8y ago
  > AMP is text book Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. No ad network but the Google ad network allowed. Are you talking hypothetically? Because right now... https://www.ampproject.org/docs/ads/ads_vendors https://www.ampproject.org/docs/ads/ads_vendors
  - andrewprock 8y ago
    Aren't these vendors all using Google's ad network?
  - sverhagen 8y ago
    Somewhat ironically that link doesn't work on my mobile device...
- scotth 8y ago
  > No ad network but the Google ad network allowed This is not true. https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad#supported-ad-networks https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad#...
  - ehsankia 8y ago
    Not only that, but the opensource nature also means that any network not currently on there could also integrate easily, and many have.
- s17n 8y ago
iza 8y ago
>is there a case against building within the AMP HTML and JS spec? Yes, you shouldn't need javascript for basic functionality like images.
- Cthulhu_ 8y ago
  What about async autoloading images below the fold that help improve initial page load? You don't need it, but if you've got a more interesting design or a more content-heavy front page it could be a performance improvement.
  - Aaargh20318 8y ago
    > What about async autoloading images below the fold that help improve initial page load? That sounds like an optimisation that should be implemented by the browser, not the webpage.
lucideer 8y ago
> is the case against all down to Google's ownership of the project? My main issue is that Google hosts your site and tracks all of your visitors directly, whereas you never (directly) see any of those visits. This of course depends on your definition of "ownership of the project" and whether that extends to "ownership of your site and its visitors". > these seem like issues with Google's cache and hosting, not the spec. Based on your brief description, these don't sound like they could be issues with the cache or hosting; rather they sound like they're likely with Google's JS implementations of AMP JS libraries.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  > My main issue is that Google hosts your site and tracks all of your visitors directly Sounds like your problem is specifically with Google's cache. Anyone can host an AMP cache. If you afraid of them tracking visitors, you're free to pay for your own hosting and host your own cache, instead of using their free one.
  - wmf 8y ago
    You can't really use your own cache; all Google searches only go to the Google AMP cache ("to ensure optimal performance" or whatever).
  - throwaway2048 8y ago
    Not if you want to appear in search results for Google.
  - lucideer 8y ago
    Sounds like you don't quite understand how the AMP cache works. Any link source can host an AMP cache—the cache is distributed with each link source choosing which cache (if any) to use. As a website owner, you have no control over which AMP cache is used, or which host tracks your visitors. For Google Search (probably the primary link source on at least the anglophone web), Google hosts your content and tracks your visitors.
snowwrestler 8y ago
I already have an HTML spec; it's called HTML. I already have a javascript spec; it's called ECMAscript. (still wish I could back in time and stop whatever fool decided to shove "java" into the name) > Putting aside the Google bits, is there a case against building within the AMP HTML and JS spec? Or is the case against all down to Google's ownership of the project? It's all down to how Google treats AMP pages in their SERPs. They only feature the ones in the Google cache. Imagine if Google put sites hosted at GCE on the first page of results, and moved any site hosted by AWS or Azure to the 2nd page of results. Think anyone would get mad about that? Why should it be remotely OK for them to use AMP to do the same thing?
- lern_too_spel 8y ago
  AMP is a subset of HTML that is safe to prerender. Pages hosted on GCE are not automatically safe to prerender. That is why it is reasonable to promote AMP results. They load instantly instead of merely quickly.
thirdsun 8y ago
The problem is that you can and should build fast, lightweight websites without AMP, but that won't improve your Google search rank, which will favor and only reward the AMP version, thereby forcing a specific, self-serving set of means instead of rewarding the ends, which are achievable in countless other ways. This results in the ridiculous, absurd and unnecessary situation where heavy websites that build a lightweight, Google-hosted AMP version on top are better off than your hopefully well optimized, yet AMP-less website which has been lightweight from the beginning. Fast, lightweight websites are great - it's just that AMP is completely unnecessary to achieve that goal and instead serves as a way pretense to keep users and content within the Google eco system. Google could just as well rank sites on how fast and optimized they are, regardless of AMP usage, and I'm sure we would see a race to remove the bloat the web is currently plagued by.
- jaspero 8y ago
  They seem to address this on their site: https://www.ampproject.org/about/amp-design-principles/ https://www.ampproject.org/about/amp-design-principles/ No whitelists. We won’t give any special treatment to specific sites, domains or origins except where needed for security or performance reasons.
  - golangnews 8y ago
    So why do we need AMP at all? Even if it were proposed in good faith, the power it gives google is too dangerous.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

wmf 8y ago

The concern is that Google can unilaterally change the spec any way they want, so even if it's fine now it may get worse in the future.

karmelapple 8y ago
I think OP was sort of getting at the idea of AMP becoming a standard owned externally to google. But the likelihood of that happening seems... low.
- sverhagen 8y ago
  Wouldn't that be an excellent solution for Google to silence the critics? (Excellent for them, not for us.) Donate the whole thing to a non-profit like Apache, who barely have the manpower to do more than host it, then still regain control by having many of the contributors on payroll?
  - cliffordthedog 8y ago
    Probably, but I doubt they even do that. Is google the worst company around when it comes to this sort of almost faux open source?
  - wmf 8y ago
    The real complaints are not about AMP per se but about Google's market power, so it's not clear that Google can do anything to satisfy critics. (Even splitting search into a separate company would still leave that company as a monopoly.)

mattmanser 8y ago

So, we spent ages getting to where everyone agreed on standards and they were correctly implemented. Google are now making new standards which don't conform to the agreed standard, which restrict how you can build your site. If you don't do it, they'll destroy your traffic. AMP is text book Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. No ad network but the Google ad network allowed. We're sleep walking back into the same thing MS did 30 years ago, with Google this time. They really have just lived long enough to become the villain.

EdwardDiego 8y ago
> AMP is text book Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. No ad network but the Google ad network allowed. Are you talking hypothetically? Because right now... https://www.ampproject.org/docs/ads/ads_vendors https://www.ampproject.org/docs/ads/ads_vendors
- andrewprock 8y ago
  Aren't these vendors all using Google's ad network?
- sverhagen 8y ago
  Somewhat ironically that link doesn't work on my mobile device...
scotth 8y ago
> No ad network but the Google ad network allowed This is not true. https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad#supported-ad-networks https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad#...
- ehsankia 8y ago
  Not only that, but the opensource nature also means that any network not currently on there could also integrate easily, and many have.
s17n 8y ago

iza 8y ago

>is there a case against building within the AMP HTML and JS spec? Yes, you shouldn't need javascript for basic functionality like images.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago
What about async autoloading images below the fold that help improve initial page load? You don't need it, but if you've got a more interesting design or a more content-heavy front page it could be a performance improvement.
- Aaargh20318 8y ago
  > What about async autoloading images below the fold that help improve initial page load? That sounds like an optimisation that should be implemented by the browser, not the webpage.

lucideer 8y ago

> is the case against all down to Google's ownership of the project? My main issue is that Google hosts your site and tracks all of your visitors directly, whereas you never (directly) see any of those visits. This of course depends on your definition of "ownership of the project" and whether that extends to "ownership of your site and its visitors". > these seem like issues with Google's cache and hosting, not the spec. Based on your brief description, these don't sound like they could be issues with the cache or hosting; rather they sound like they're likely with Google's JS implementations of AMP JS libraries.

ehsankia 8y ago
> My main issue is that Google hosts your site and tracks all of your visitors directly Sounds like your problem is specifically with Google's cache. Anyone can host an AMP cache. If you afraid of them tracking visitors, you're free to pay for your own hosting and host your own cache, instead of using their free one.
- wmf 8y ago
  You can't really use your own cache; all Google searches only go to the Google AMP cache ("to ensure optimal performance" or whatever).
- throwaway2048 8y ago
  Not if you want to appear in search results for Google.
- lucideer 8y ago
  Sounds like you don't quite understand how the AMP cache works. Any link source can host an AMP cache—the cache is distributed with each link source choosing which cache (if any) to use. As a website owner, you have no control over which AMP cache is used, or which host tracks your visitors. For Google Search (probably the primary link source on at least the anglophone web), Google hosts your content and tracks your visitors.

snowwrestler 8y ago

I already have an HTML spec; it's called HTML. I already have a javascript spec; it's called ECMAscript. (still wish I could back in time and stop whatever fool decided to shove "java" into the name) > Putting aside the Google bits, is there a case against building within the AMP HTML and JS spec? Or is the case against all down to Google's ownership of the project? It's all down to how Google treats AMP pages in their SERPs. They only feature the ones in the Google cache. Imagine if Google put sites hosted at GCE on the first page of results, and moved any site hosted by AWS or Azure to the 2nd page of results. Think anyone would get mad about that? Why should it be remotely OK for them to use AMP to do the same thing?

lern_too_spel 8y ago
AMP is a subset of HTML that is safe to prerender. Pages hosted on GCE are not automatically safe to prerender. That is why it is reasonable to promote AMP results. They load instantly instead of merely quickly.

thirdsun 8y ago

The problem is that you can and should build fast, lightweight websites without AMP, but that won't improve your Google search rank, which will favor and only reward the AMP version, thereby forcing a specific, self-serving set of means instead of rewarding the ends, which are achievable in countless other ways. This results in the ridiculous, absurd and unnecessary situation where heavy websites that build a lightweight, Google-hosted AMP version on top are better off than your hopefully well optimized, yet AMP-less website which has been lightweight from the beginning. Fast, lightweight websites are great - it's just that AMP is completely unnecessary to achieve that goal and instead serves as a way pretense to keep users and content within the Google eco system. Google could just as well rank sites on how fast and optimized they are, regardless of AMP usage, and I'm sure we would see a race to remove the bloat the web is currently plagued by.

jaspero 8y ago
They seem to address this on their site: https://www.ampproject.org/about/amp-design-principles/ https://www.ampproject.org/about/amp-design-principles/ No whitelists. We won’t give any special treatment to specific sites, domains or origins except where needed for security or performance reasons.
- golangnews 8y ago
  So why do we need AMP at all? Even if it were proposed in good faith, the power it gives google is too dangerous.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]