4 ms·

Tech is always something that can be solved. It doesn't change the fact that AMP is mostly about Google et al. gaining control over the web. - What you call i

Tech is always something that can be solved. It doesn't change the fact that AMP is mostly about Google et al. gaining control over the web. - What you call ideological is a mere fact; google is by definition not an open source movement, and it is creating things with the primary purpose of gaining more users into their own gated ecosystem - Google is obviously gaining control about how content is rendered, which makes it possible for google to control the monetarization - If you ever spent some time among SEO and marketing people this is a pretty obvious conclusion, as those people usually run that part of a company - There are very simple solutions available for making websites faster, it just so happened that AMP was a great way for Google to kill two birds with one stone, i.e. making the web faster and more googly at the same time; their incentives are just not so aligned with other parties All in all the entire thing is similar to the attitude of Google with their plan of changing how URLs work. The problem is not that it is in their best interest to control the web, the problem is that Google seems entirely unaware as a company that others want to have a different version of our future, and that it is entirely legitimate to not use Google solutions as a foundation of that future. As a whole company, Google appears to be somehwat autistic to me. "But this is good for everyone" Google says. No it isn't. The way Google is crippling open source is by offering open source on paper, but then controlling the gateways, like forcing smartphone manufacturers to ship their version of Android. So on the leadership level it is also acting deeply hypocritical.

danShumway 8y ago
> The problem is not that it is in their best interest to control the web, the problem is that Google seems entirely unaware as a company that others want to have a different version of our future, and that it is entirely legitimate to not use Google solutions as a foundation of that future. This is really well stated. > As a whole company, Google appears to be somehwat autistic to me. And... this isn't. Being proud or strongheaded, or having dysfunctional internal politics is not remotely the same thing as being autistic; let's avoid stigmatizing. ---- I think that Google has a lot of self-confidence, and it bothers them that they need to do this dance with other members of the community. Google makes its own decisions, on its own, and then is surprised when other stakeholders are "difficult" and don't just go along with their vision. "Because obviously we wouldn't be proposing something unless we were sure it was the right decision, so why is everyone running around questioning it?" That's not to say that there aren't good intentions (although it's become painfully obvious that when well-meaning employees clash with upper management on subjects like privacy or advertising, upper management will always win). But those good intentions have to be coupled with an understanding that the web is bigger and more complicated than Google is. Google isn't the web's parent or guardian, it is an equal stakeholder sitting at the table next to other equal stakeholders. It is not a laudable act of charity for Google to listen to those stakeholders or to include them in decision processes. It is expected. No single company is ever going to be diverse enough, or smart enough, or benevolent enough to control the web. Google certainly isn't -- ignoring user-hostile groups within upper management, Google will still only ever be able to solve problems from the perspective of an advertising company. Moving AMP to an open governance model is very positive, but doesn't get rid of my concerns about the technology. It's a very Google move to go off and do a thing despite significant criticism and pushback outside of the company, and then once they've shaped the result according to their own specifications to come back and say, "See, it's a community effort now. Why are you complaining?" The URL stuff you mentioned is a perfect example. This is the Chrome dev team internally deciding that URLs are an "obvious" problem, releasing a browser update that acts on that internal decision, and then responding to critics by saying, "well, we're just trying to start a conversation. Let's talk about it." That is the wrong order to use when messing with how the web works. It's not even necessarily a question of what's specifically wrong with AMP at this point -- it's that if we were collectively trying to solve the problem of page bloat, we could probably do a much better job in general than AMP does. AMP is an advertiser's solution to web bloat retrofitted to address the broader community's criticism. So you get Javascript requirements on each page load, you get URL breakages that have to be solved by future standards, you get prescriptive metrics about what components Google thinks pages need rather than descriptive metrics about what render targets a page should hit. Not necessarily because Google is evil, but because Google isn't the entire web and can't represent all of its needs.
- dagenix 8y ago
  > it's that if we were collectively trying to solve the problem of page bloat, we could probably do a much better job in general than AMP does. There are a lot of people interested in reducing page bloat. Outside of AMP, I'm not aware of any other efforts. (Discounting just telling people to write better pages which is basically just telling people to status quo harder) One of the repeated critisicms of AMP seems to be that its debloating could easily be done better - but if it's so easy, why is no one doing it?
  - zzzcpan 8y ago
    > (Discounting just telling people to write better pages which is basically just telling people to status quo harder) Well, AMP is just that, telling people to status quo harder, but with incentives from a monopoly (or rather abuse of power, forcing others to do that) and in a specific way said monopoly wants it.
  - danShumway 8y ago
    I would argue that there are efforts, many of them in radically different directions from AMP, and many of them already far more effective than AMP. Adblocking, for example, which several browsers now have built in and explicitly advertise it as a way to speed up pages and increase performance. Reader modes and Pocket will also take existing pages and re-serve them with cruft removed. Before HTTPS became the norm, Opera was offering turbo modes that allowed users to opt-into middleware rather than publishers. And along those lines, Opera Mini is still an incredibly popular mobile browser as soon as you leave the US. These are very different solutions from AMP, but that's the point. A diverse set of solutions to page bloat will look diverse. It won't just be 5 companies doing the same thing slightly differently. In regards to why there hasn't been broader success with the solution that most people default to, "just write better pages", that's because you need a carrot, and Google has that carrot -- preferential search placement. The original post dismissed the idea that people were only interested in AMP to get into search rankings, but I think it's a very strong argument. Obviously news sites are using AMP for reasons other than making their pages fast, or they would have made their pages fast before AMP came around. It is, pretty objectively, not hard to make a website that would be faster than most news sources. The problem has always been how to make publishers care. The fact that Google currently has the most power to dictate to publishers how they structure their content does not mean that Google's decisions on how to wield that power are always in the community's best interest. If you wanted to build an alternative standard to AMP built on the input of many different stakeholders, you would almost definitely need Google's help implementing it. That's not the same thing as saying that Google should decide on its own what that solution is. There is, finally, the kind of controversial answer to this question. I don't like this answer, but I don't dismiss it. It's that the broader web community may not actually care about web speed. I am very interested in finding ways to reduce page bloat -- but what if it turns out that most of the stakeholders online, most of the people who are actually building websites and visiting them, disagree that this is a significant problem? What if the solution to having slow webpages is literally just that users click away after a few seconds and go about their day? What if it's just that slow websites will gradually get less traffic, and if they don't care about that, then we shouldn't either? I'm skeptical of this answer, and I would be very unhappy if it turned out to be true. But I can't dismiss it entirely out of hand. In a large, diverse web, it is possible that there will occasionally be broad consensus that goes in the opposite direction of what Google or I want. And part of embracing that diversity is being at least a tiny bit open to the idea that the web is bigger than what I want it to be. But I don't think that's likely. I think the most likely answer is that publishers are embracing AMP to get search priority, and if Mozilla owned the world's largest search engine we probably would have a better version of AMP right now that took more people's input into account.
magicalist 8y ago
Autistic? Really? Looking beyond that, it would be nice if you had engaged with the GP post instead of talking past it. Most of your post seems to back up the summary there. Like, "makes it possible for google to control the monetarization"...in what way? It always comes up in these threads that you can include any ad network in AMP pages, but it always comes up again. > their plan of changing how URLs work Their non-specific plan that displaying URLs in the location bar needs work?
- user812 8y ago
  "...in what way?" First, by crushing all the smaller players in ad-tech that can't keep up with all the criteria needed to be included in AMP (Ads are very limited on AMP). Fundamentally, by essentially controlling how content and ads are displayed and being directly involved in this with a lot of available resources and no barrier to entry. It is a bit subtle, which is why others are still playing along right now. Regarding the URL thing, they announced "Oh by the way, we have too look into this URL thing, we may change that during the next years, it's not good" This was published via Twitter. When devs complained and said that things like this needs to be discussed openly and not via invitation to the Google HQ, they got ignored. This is what I mean with 'autistic', which maybe isn't accurate, I don't know. You could probably say 'arrogant' instead. Here's a very fitting quote: "This guise of openness is perhaps even worse than the Apple News Format, which at the very least does not pretend to be an open standard." https://80x24.net/post/the-problem-with-amp/ https://80x24.net/post/the-problem-with-amp/ Google pretending to be so open and good, while actually being no different to Apple, MS, FB, etc. That's the Google culture, apparently.
  - infogulch 8y ago
    > all the criteria needed to be included in AMP (Ads are very limited on AMP) What does this mean, specifically? It sounds like you're saying that advertisers have to get their shit together and not provide a crummy experience to users to be valid AMP. What, no more monkey punching? No more meta-meta-meta ad networks that load 4 nested networks that sit in your browser and auction off the right to auction off the right to display an ad? No more epilepsy-triggering flashing images? No more 2MB js-based animations that kill your battery life and distract you? That sounds... great actually, where can I sign up?
sfohohoho 8y ago
Stop using autistic to denigrate. /Reported.
Jyaif 8y ago
The alternative to AMP is Apple News/Snapchat stories/some other silo that delivers content faster than any news website. Assuming you don't want the web to die because of those silos, what changes would you do?
- JoshMnem 8y ago
  Apple News and Snapchat Stories appear to be proprietary content viewers that don't directly affect the open Web. (I don't use Apple or Snapchat and probably never will.) AMP is aggressively hijacking the entire Web, and there is no way to avoid it. Google is even trying to hide URLs in Chrome so that users won't know the difference between AMP (a proprietary scheme masquerading as "open source") and real open standards (HTML). The speed problem is about JavaScript, not HTML. The industry needs to address JavaScript bloat, not create an alternate form of HTML.

danShumway 8y ago

> The problem is not that it is in their best interest to control the web, the problem is that Google seems entirely unaware as a company that others want to have a different version of our future, and that it is entirely legitimate to not use Google solutions as a foundation of that future. This is really well stated. > As a whole company, Google appears to be somehwat autistic to me. And... this isn't. Being proud or strongheaded, or having dysfunctional internal politics is not remotely the same thing as being autistic; let's avoid stigmatizing. ---- I think that Google has a lot of self-confidence, and it bothers them that they need to do this dance with other members of the community. Google makes its own decisions, on its own, and then is surprised when other stakeholders are "difficult" and don't just go along with their vision. "Because obviously we wouldn't be proposing something unless we were sure it was the right decision, so why is everyone running around questioning it?" That's not to say that there aren't good intentions (although it's become painfully obvious that when well-meaning employees clash with upper management on subjects like privacy or advertising, upper management will always win). But those good intentions have to be coupled with an understanding that the web is bigger and more complicated than Google is. Google isn't the web's parent or guardian, it is an equal stakeholder sitting at the table next to other equal stakeholders. It is not a laudable act of charity for Google to listen to those stakeholders or to include them in decision processes. It is expected. No single company is ever going to be diverse enough, or smart enough, or benevolent enough to control the web. Google certainly isn't -- ignoring user-hostile groups within upper management, Google will still only ever be able to solve problems from the perspective of an advertising company. Moving AMP to an open governance model is very positive, but doesn't get rid of my concerns about the technology. It's a very Google move to go off and do a thing despite significant criticism and pushback outside of the company, and then once they've shaped the result according to their own specifications to come back and say, "See, it's a community effort now. Why are you complaining?" The URL stuff you mentioned is a perfect example. This is the Chrome dev team internally deciding that URLs are an "obvious" problem, releasing a browser update that acts on that internal decision, and then responding to critics by saying, "well, we're just trying to start a conversation. Let's talk about it." That is the wrong order to use when messing with how the web works. It's not even necessarily a question of what's specifically wrong with AMP at this point -- it's that if we were collectively trying to solve the problem of page bloat, we could probably do a much better job in general than AMP does. AMP is an advertiser's solution to web bloat retrofitted to address the broader community's criticism. So you get Javascript requirements on each page load, you get URL breakages that have to be solved by future standards, you get prescriptive metrics about what components Google thinks pages need rather than descriptive metrics about what render targets a page should hit. Not necessarily because Google is evil, but because Google isn't the entire web and can't represent all of its needs.

dagenix 8y ago
> it's that if we were collectively trying to solve the problem of page bloat, we could probably do a much better job in general than AMP does. There are a lot of people interested in reducing page bloat. Outside of AMP, I'm not aware of any other efforts. (Discounting just telling people to write better pages which is basically just telling people to status quo harder) One of the repeated critisicms of AMP seems to be that its debloating could easily be done better - but if it's so easy, why is no one doing it?
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  > (Discounting just telling people to write better pages which is basically just telling people to status quo harder) Well, AMP is just that, telling people to status quo harder, but with incentives from a monopoly (or rather abuse of power, forcing others to do that) and in a specific way said monopoly wants it.
- danShumway 8y ago
  I would argue that there are efforts, many of them in radically different directions from AMP, and many of them already far more effective than AMP. Adblocking, for example, which several browsers now have built in and explicitly advertise it as a way to speed up pages and increase performance. Reader modes and Pocket will also take existing pages and re-serve them with cruft removed. Before HTTPS became the norm, Opera was offering turbo modes that allowed users to opt-into middleware rather than publishers. And along those lines, Opera Mini is still an incredibly popular mobile browser as soon as you leave the US. These are very different solutions from AMP, but that's the point. A diverse set of solutions to page bloat will look diverse. It won't just be 5 companies doing the same thing slightly differently. In regards to why there hasn't been broader success with the solution that most people default to, "just write better pages", that's because you need a carrot, and Google has that carrot -- preferential search placement. The original post dismissed the idea that people were only interested in AMP to get into search rankings, but I think it's a very strong argument. Obviously news sites are using AMP for reasons other than making their pages fast, or they would have made their pages fast before AMP came around. It is, pretty objectively, not hard to make a website that would be faster than most news sources. The problem has always been how to make publishers care. The fact that Google currently has the most power to dictate to publishers how they structure their content does not mean that Google's decisions on how to wield that power are always in the community's best interest. If you wanted to build an alternative standard to AMP built on the input of many different stakeholders, you would almost definitely need Google's help implementing it. That's not the same thing as saying that Google should decide on its own what that solution is. There is, finally, the kind of controversial answer to this question. I don't like this answer, but I don't dismiss it. It's that the broader web community may not actually care about web speed. I am very interested in finding ways to reduce page bloat -- but what if it turns out that most of the stakeholders online, most of the people who are actually building websites and visiting them, disagree that this is a significant problem? What if the solution to having slow webpages is literally just that users click away after a few seconds and go about their day? What if it's just that slow websites will gradually get less traffic, and if they don't care about that, then we shouldn't either? I'm skeptical of this answer, and I would be very unhappy if it turned out to be true. But I can't dismiss it entirely out of hand. In a large, diverse web, it is possible that there will occasionally be broad consensus that goes in the opposite direction of what Google or I want. And part of embracing that diversity is being at least a tiny bit open to the idea that the web is bigger than what I want it to be. But I don't think that's likely. I think the most likely answer is that publishers are embracing AMP to get search priority, and if Mozilla owned the world's largest search engine we probably would have a better version of AMP right now that took more people's input into account.

magicalist 8y ago

Autistic? Really? Looking beyond that, it would be nice if you had engaged with the GP post instead of talking past it. Most of your post seems to back up the summary there. Like, "makes it possible for google to control the monetarization"...in what way? It always comes up in these threads that you can include any ad network in AMP pages, but it always comes up again. > their plan of changing how URLs work Their non-specific plan that displaying URLs in the location bar needs work?

user812 8y ago
"...in what way?" First, by crushing all the smaller players in ad-tech that can't keep up with all the criteria needed to be included in AMP (Ads are very limited on AMP). Fundamentally, by essentially controlling how content and ads are displayed and being directly involved in this with a lot of available resources and no barrier to entry. It is a bit subtle, which is why others are still playing along right now. Regarding the URL thing, they announced "Oh by the way, we have too look into this URL thing, we may change that during the next years, it's not good" This was published via Twitter. When devs complained and said that things like this needs to be discussed openly and not via invitation to the Google HQ, they got ignored. This is what I mean with 'autistic', which maybe isn't accurate, I don't know. You could probably say 'arrogant' instead. Here's a very fitting quote: "This guise of openness is perhaps even worse than the Apple News Format, which at the very least does not pretend to be an open standard." https://80x24.net/post/the-problem-with-amp/ https://80x24.net/post/the-problem-with-amp/ Google pretending to be so open and good, while actually being no different to Apple, MS, FB, etc. That's the Google culture, apparently.
- infogulch 8y ago
  > all the criteria needed to be included in AMP (Ads are very limited on AMP) What does this mean, specifically? It sounds like you're saying that advertisers have to get their shit together and not provide a crummy experience to users to be valid AMP. What, no more monkey punching? No more meta-meta-meta ad networks that load 4 nested networks that sit in your browser and auction off the right to auction off the right to display an ad? No more epilepsy-triggering flashing images? No more 2MB js-based animations that kill your battery life and distract you? That sounds... great actually, where can I sign up?

sfohohoho 8y ago

Stop using autistic to denigrate. /Reported.

Jyaif 8y ago

The alternative to AMP is Apple News/Snapchat stories/some other silo that delivers content faster than any news website. Assuming you don't want the web to die because of those silos, what changes would you do?

JoshMnem 8y ago
Apple News and Snapchat Stories appear to be proprietary content viewers that don't directly affect the open Web. (I don't use Apple or Snapchat and probably never will.) AMP is aggressively hijacking the entire Web, and there is no way to avoid it. Google is even trying to hide URLs in Chrome so that users won't know the difference between AMP (a proprietary scheme masquerading as "open source") and real open standards (HTML). The speed problem is about JavaScript, not HTML. The industry needs to address JavaScript bloat, not create an alternate form of HTML.