3 ms·
> It's a technically unsound mishmash of complaints, most probably deriving from the aforementioned behavior of the Google Search Mobile page, but imbued with t
by lucideer 8y ago
> It's a technically unsound mishmash of complaints, most probably deriving from the aforementioned behavior of the Google Search Mobile page, but imbued with the subtext that Google is exploiting publishers by providing a CDN. That's absurd. Maybe Google's exploiting publishers with its captive newsreader, but not by providing a CDN.
Sorry if I'm missing some vital sentence in your analysis, but I can't see where you explain what exactly is absurd about it? How is Google's AMP cache not stealing traffic from the origin site? This is exactly what they're doing from a technical perspective: this seems to me to be an unambiguous fact.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> How is Google's AMP cache not stealing traffic from the origin site? Traffic is a cost. Advertising impressions have value, and usually correlate to traffic, and analytics associated with the traffic has value, but AMP is designed to allow content owners to control and benefit from advertising, and recieve analytics, even though the content is served from a third-party cache (which Google isn't the only party operating.) What is the operator of the original site losing aside from costs associated with serving traffic?