3 ms·

> AMP requires me to manually edit URLs to remove AMP before sharing That's Google's usage of AMP pages, not necessarily AMP itself though, right?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
vec 8y ago
There is no "AMP itself" outside of Google. The AMP project consists of three parts[1]: 1. a specification for an HTML/CSS subset (almost) which is relatively easy for browsers to render efficiently. 2. an open source client-side JS library designed to automatically apply a number of performance optimizations to pages written against the specification above 3. a closed-source proprietary proxy server designed to further optimize content delivery for pages written with the above tooling. The first two are pretty awesome; full stop. The third one is probably also pretty awesome from a technical perspective, but it's hard to say for sure since I can't spin up my own proxy server to find out. AMP pages can be served without the proxy layer, but then they're not really AMP pages. They're just unusually svelte HTML pages with some slightly esotreric JS runtime extensions. In order for the end user to actually get most of the benefits of AMP the page needs to be filtered through a compatible proxy, and that means Google (or Cloudflare, who also host a proxy layer with Google's blessing). I've got nothing against Google's proprietary tools. I've got a Gmail account, all my spreadsheets live in Google Docs, I still miss Reader. But let's call a spade a spade. AMP is fundamentally a proprietary Google offering with a handful of open source components. Nothing short of enabling third parties to host their own proxy servers will change that fundamental fact. [1]: https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/ https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway2048 8y ago
Most defences of AMP seem to focus on how all the Bad Stuff(tm) is a property of how Google does AMP (As if anyone else showing users AMP pages is relevant), and how its an open standard you can "fix the problems with" (You can't fix things in the way Google decides to show users things). It really smells like an android-esque "fake open" move where any complaints about Google's control over the situation is deflected with arguments about how parts of it being open source (But not the parts that are giving Google said control)

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

vec 8y ago

There is no "AMP itself" outside of Google. The AMP project consists of three parts[1]: 1. a specification for an HTML/CSS subset (almost) which is relatively easy for browsers to render efficiently. 2. an open source client-side JS library designed to automatically apply a number of performance optimizations to pages written against the specification above 3. a closed-source proprietary proxy server designed to further optimize content delivery for pages written with the above tooling. The first two are pretty awesome; full stop. The third one is probably also pretty awesome from a technical perspective, but it's hard to say for sure since I can't spin up my own proxy server to find out. AMP pages can be served without the proxy layer, but then they're not really AMP pages. They're just unusually svelte HTML pages with some slightly esotreric JS runtime extensions. In order for the end user to actually get most of the benefits of AMP the page needs to be filtered through a compatible proxy, and that means Google (or Cloudflare, who also host a proxy layer with Google's blessing). I've got nothing against Google's proprietary tools. I've got a Gmail account, all my spreadsheets live in Google Docs, I still miss Reader. But let's call a spade a spade. AMP is fundamentally a proprietary Google offering with a handful of open source components. Nothing short of enabling third parties to host their own proxy servers will change that fundamental fact. [1]: https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/ https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

throwaway2048 8y ago

Most defences of AMP seem to focus on how all the Bad Stuff(tm) is a property of how Google does AMP (As if anyone else showing users AMP pages is relevant), and how its an open standard you can "fix the problems with" (You can't fix things in the way Google decides to show users things). It really smells like an android-esque "fake open" move where any complaints about Google's control over the situation is deflected with arguments about how parts of it being open source (But not the parts that are giving Google said control)