14 ms·
Announcing AMP Real URL
- anfilt 7y agoSigh that last thing we need is more AMP.
- reustle 7y agoIf I understand correctly, the biggest problem was that google was hosting the cached amp pages. If this instead sends the user to your own domain, viewing your content which just happens to be hosted elsewhere, does that solve the primary complaints? I know google was also exposing content directly on the search results, but I feel that's a separate issue.
- tyingq 7y agoCurious if Google still owns the left/right swipe and back button events when a user lands on your page from a carousel. Also don't miss the bit about "currently just Chrome on Android"
- mmastrac 7y agoThe problem is that the AMP standard is just generally poorly-thought-out, no matter who hosts it. Instead of a subset of HTML, it's a weird mishmash of everything that requires magic incantations to make things work for the browsers of the time it was invented. It's like NaCl/PNaCl - a good idea in theory, but created by a team that didn't do a great job at speccing something that could be long lived and satisfy other players than Google+Chrome.
- cromwellian 7y agoIsn’t it a subset by definition? It runs in html5 browsers. Other sunsets of HTML failed magnificently like XHTML basic and it’s siblings.
- tyingq 7y agoTechnically perhaps. But with things like <amp-img> instead of <img>, so yes, it "runs".
- cromwellian 7y agoWeb-components are HTML. Registering a new element (e.g. <amp-img>) that wraps <img> with some additional restrictions, is pretty much making a subset facade that restricts you to the subset. It's like complaining that BibTeX, LaTeX, AMSTeX et al aren't "TeX". In the original incarnation of SGML, the whole point of the DTD and DSSSL was to be able to define new elements, and specify how they are handled. This seems perfectly legitimate and part of the HTML standard. There may be other problems with AMP, but creating new high level elements that resolve to standard HTML elements, doesn't seem to be one of them, and arguing over whether something is named 'amp-img', or 'img' + some detailed validator that throws errors if you try to do anything with <img> off the rails, seems to be bike-shedding over naming, and if anything, I'd argue giving new names to a function to limit its inputs is more clear and readable, then adding precondition checks only.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tyingq 7y agoWell those new elements aren't functional unless you specifically include a Google controlled/hosted piece of JavaScript in your AMP page. If it's a standard, shouldn't there be some way for those elements to work without including someone else's JavaScript?
- cromwellian 7y agoIsn't that like saying "This page doesn't render without including this CSS or Font or XSL Stylesheet"? If your objection is that the ampjs has to be loaded from Google's CDN, well, the whole point of Signed Exchanges/Web packaging is to move to a world where AMP caches are federated and you can host this stuff elsewhere. The only real objection that has merit IMHO is that Google Search should rank these things based on performance, not on amp validation alone, so if you authored your own AMP-like framework, it could be similarly ranked.
- dfabulich 7y agoThis new thing substantially improves the design. What design problems do you see in the new thing?
- mmastrac 7y agoThe whole spec is still a giant mess [1] of HTML and HTML-like-but-not-quite-really, with a boatload of ceremony that does nothing but glue it into an existing ecosystem. Hosting it on someone else's site doesn't fix that. [1] https://amp.dev/ru/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/learn/spec/amphtml?referrer=ampproject.org https://amp.dev/ru/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/learn/...
- themacguffinman 7y agoI honestly don't see the mess that you're referring to. Can you be a bit more specific? AFAIK, Amp is 100% valid HTML because it's a HTML subset, it is not "HTML-like-but-not-really".
- pdkl95 7y agoThat is patently not true. From mmastrac's [1]: > Resources such as images, videos, audio files or ads must be included into an AMP HTML file through custom elements such as <amp-img> From: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/spec/amp-tag-addendum.md#amp-specific-tags https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/spec/amp-t... Amp Specific Tags <amp-img> <amp-video> <amp-ad> <amp-fit-text> <amp-font> <amp-carousel> <amp-anim> <amp-youtube> <amp-twitter> <amp-vine> <amp-instagram> <amp-iframe> <amp-pixel> <amp-audio> <amp-lightbox> <amp-image-lightbox> None of that is "100% valid HTML".
- themacguffinman 7y agoCustom elements are 100% valid and standards-compliant HTML. https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/custom-elements.html https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/custom-elements.html https://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/ https://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/
- throwawaymath 7y agoWhat's wrong with NaCl?
- dfabulich 7y agoI believe the gp was referring to NaCl the Native Client https://developer.chrome.com/native-client https://developer.chrome.com/native-client Not the crypto library https://nacl.cr.yp.to/ https://nacl.cr.yp.to/
- mmastrac 7y agoNaCl was an interesting tech demo, but it was a complex set of rules built on the x86 house of cards and it took a lot of work to port it between platforms (I think it was demoed on ARM but never took off). PNaCl was a "lazy" attempt at making this cross-platform by leveraging LLVM's intermediate format which was never designed to be a "format" like that. WebAssembly is 10x better than either of those formats and you can see the benefits of having multiple players design something to work for a long-term horizon.
- chime 7y agoAs I understand it, Google actually hosts the AMP content but the browser “lies” and says the content is coming from the original domain. I honestly would prefer what you are suggesting, even if that meant using iframe on the original domain to host the AMP cache from Google. 1. example.com/long-url with content and meta tag specifying AMP url (2) below. 2. example.com/long-url/amp that embeds a full-height 0-margin iframe to google.com/amp/example.com/long-url and has no external styles/JS. 3. Google caches content from (1) example.com/long-url and when user clicks it, directs them to (2) example.com/long-url/amp. Other than 1 extra HTML page, everything is from Google’s AMP cache. The browsers do not need to lie. And if Cloudflare hosts the (2) AMP page, it can be fast as the rest of their services.
- gruez 7y ago>but the browser “lies” and says the content is coming from the original domain. Is this a chrome thing? I don't notice it on safari.
- tyingq 7y agoIt's "Signed HTTP Exchanges" "It is worth noting that SXG is already supported by the Opera web browser, still under evaluation by the Microsoft Edge team, while Mozilla Firefox considers it harmful, and the Safari team already expressed its skepticism" https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-chrome-adding-support-for-signed-http-exchanges/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/google/google-chrome-a...
- judge2020 7y agoIt's a technically feasable thing: > The solution makes use of Web Packaging (which incorporates some clever use of cryptography) to allow the cache (run by Google, Cloudflare or others) to keep a copy of an AMP page and serve it quickly to the end user, but to also contain cryptographic proof of where the page originally came from. Not sure if WebKit/safari have implemented this yet.
- tyingq 7y ago
- JohnFen 7y ago> If I understand correctly, the biggest problem was that google was hosting the cached amp pages. Speaking for myself, that's one large problem. The other large problem is that I dislike the AMP pages themselves.
- snek 7y agoThe biggest issue is that google is forcing websites to use its own html subset by judging sites that use it instead of by judging sites based on actual speed. There are a lot of posts on HN about sites that got no speed increase or even regressed when switching to AMP.
- stephenr 7y ago> If this instead sends the user to your own domain, viewing your content which just happens to be hosted elsewhere But it doesn’t. It sends them elsewhere and pretends it’s your domain.
- AgentME 7y agoIs that different than a CDN? This seems even better than a CDN, because the client verifies that the content is signed by the original server, where a normal CDN is free to modify content that goes through it.
- stephenr 7y agoA data-whoring mega-corp isn't forcing anyone to use a CDN, and a CDN doesn't mandate Javascript (and CSS to punish visitors who block that JS).
- mook 7y agoThe biggest problem for me is loading an external script (hosted by Google), plus CSS rules to hide the content until a timeout if that script doesn't load. It literally makes the pages load slower for me (but will never show up in their telemetry).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- bingobob 7y agowatch HN rage about amp
- zackbloom 7y agoI work on AMP Real URL at Cloudflare and am happy answer any questions (live from AMPConf in Tokyo)! If you're looking for a super in-depth technical post which includes all sorts of wonderful bits about the engineering and cryptography involved don't miss https://blog.cloudflare.com/real-urls-for-amp-cached-content-using-cloudflare-workers/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/real-urls-for-amp-cached-content... AMP Real URL was built by engineers Avery Harnish (started when Avery was an intern!) and Gabbi Fisher, and is built on top of our Workers [1] tech. 1- https://www.cloudflare.com/products/cloudflare-workers/ https://www.cloudflare.com/products/cloudflare-workers/
- negativegate 7y agoSo is this basically the server okaying a replay attack? I'm looking through the technical post but it hasn't clicked yet.
- zackbloom 7y agoThat's kind of a funny way of thinking about it, buy yes? Loading an AMP page is (hopefully) an action which isn't mutating any state, so I would say it's more similar to how a CDN works. You decide you are interested in having a cache respond to a given request in a specific way, and it responds to requests which look a certain way with that response. In this case it's significantly more secure though, as the exact request and response are signed and a third-party you trust (your browser) is deciding if that signature matches.
- floatingatoll 7y agoAnalogy: Squid caching with a signature from your SSL certificate that proves it was valid as of when you signed it, so that the browser can trust the Squid cache and display the URL that’s in the signed plaintext with a domain matching that of the certificate that signed the cache blob. Today’s browsers trust all user-configured proxies implicitly and no other proxies at all, so providing a signed copy of the GET-only AMP content, it can be safely cached (the “replay attack”) without needing to trust the cache, because it’s signed plaintext.
- 7y ago
- pupppet 7y agoThumbs down to anyone enabling AMP’s success. Google should be measuring page speed only, it’s none of their business what methods you used to achieve that speed.
- AlexandrB 7y agoThis is exactly right. Google's behavior with AMP often seems orthogonal to their stated goals.
- comex 7y agoYou can improve your network request speed, but you can’t bring the time taken down to literally zero, i.e. the speed if your page was already prefetched while the user was looking at search results. Yet for privacy reasons, prefetched results had to be served from a cache, yet the Web had no way for Google to cache a page without literally rehosting it on its own domain – which in turn required restrictions on JavaScript, to avoid random people’s code being able to execute in the context of www.google.com. That explains most of AMP. On the other hand, AMP Real URL is based on Signed HTTP Exchanges, which allow one site to send a cached copy of someone else’s site, in a much more straightforward manner. In theory, Google could now drop the bulk of what’s now known as “AMP” and cache arbitrary pages that indicate their willingness to be cached. That they’re instead integrating this with AMP suggests they may not drop it, which would be unfortunate. On the other hand, since Signed HTTP Exchanges will remain a Chrome-only feature for the foreseeable future, it’s arguably a bit early to expect Google to make that kind of commitment.
- snek 7y agoIf Google didn't penalize sites that don't use AMP, and instead just measured response, paint, etc times and such, I would agree with you.
- AlexandrB 7y ago> You can improve your network request speed, but you can’t bring the time taken down to literally zero, i.e. the speed if your page was already prefetched while the user was looking at search results. Maybe I'm just old, but I don't understand why this is a worthwhile goal. Even with its bloat the internet today is much, much faster than it was 15 years ago and I'm quite happy to wait a few seconds for a page to load. In addition, doesn't pre-fetching every result just waste bandwidth on mobile?
- christianmm 7y ago> Importantly your site is still being served from Google’s AMP cache just as before; all of this comes without any cost to your SEO or web performance. Glad to see they've addressed AMP's main leverage point
- AlexandrB 7y agoThis is a "solution" to a "problem" that AMP itself created. And in the process it creates additional complexity[1] and a new potential revenue stream[2] for middlemen providing a service that shouldn't be necessary in the first place. Astounding. And oh yeah: > AMP Real URL is only supported in the Chrome browser at this time, but we are optimistic it will be supported more widely as its benefit to Internet users becomes clear. Who needs web standards, right? [3] [1] Especially egregious because it's making SSL identity validation even more complex than it was before. I'm sure this will make getting security "right" even harder. [2] Or in this case a new barrier to competition: > After speaking with publishers and with Internet users, we have decided not to charge for AMP Real URL. This is not because our customers haven’t been excited or willing to pay for it, AMP makes up a huge component of many site’s traffic. Our motivation is the same as for offering CDN or SSL services to millions of customers free of charge, we are here to help build a better Internet and improving AMP is a huge step in that direction. Edit: [3] dfabulich (below) has correctly pointed out that this is in the process of being standardized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses-05 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed... Despite this, Firefox has currently marked this proposal as "harmful" (https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/). It seems to me as though Google may be ramming this one through despite objections.
- dfabulich 7y ago> Who needs web standards, right? This new thing (signed HTTP exchanges) is an IETF draft. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed-responses-05 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yasskin-http-origin-signed... As usual, Chrome is the first browser to implement this, but they're participating in the normal standards process. (Microsoft is in favor. The Chrome team generally ships stuff if at least one other major browser vendor approves.)
- AlexandrB 7y agoI stand corrected. But I still think that AMP and Google in general are bad for an open, competitive internet.
- 7y ago
- bjoko 7y agoI wonder if this will have any impact on AMP for Email as well. https://emailinnovations.com/the-email-is-being-amp-ed/ https://emailinnovations.com/the-email-is-being-amp-ed/
- tambourine_man 7y agoWill the usability still suck? Can I tap the menu bar to go to the top?
- maxyme 7y agoMozilla's Position: "Mozilla has concerns about the shift in the web security model required for handling web-packaged information. Specifically, the ability for an origin to act on behalf of another without a client ever contacting the authoritative server is worrisome, as is the removal of a guarantee of confidentiality from the web security model (the host serving the web package has access to plain text). We recognise that the use cases satisfied by web packaging are useful, and would be likely to support an approach that enabled such use cases so long as the foregoing concerns could be addressed." https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/ https://mozilla.github.io/standards-positions/
- dfabulich 7y agoApple's position: "The Security Considerations describe some bad things that can happen even if the spec is properly implemented. Unsurprisingly, I think those things are bad. No time to make actual technical contributions at this time but I will consider it if this spec gets multi-vendor interest." https://twitter.com/othermaciej/status/951001352347402240 https://twitter.com/othermaciej/status/951001352347402240 Microsoft is in favor.
- comex 7y agoIf by “Apple’s position” you mean “a 15-month-old tweet by one Apple employee”. Edit: And the spec has since gotten multi-vendor interest. From Microsoft: > We're excited about the potential for this feature set to resolve some of the performance and privacy problems of alternative approaches, and we have been talking to publishers who are interested in utilizing these technologies to provide accelerated experiences. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/gPH_BcOBEtc/QwdrwjmlDQAJ https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/gPH...
- magicalist 7y ago> three-month-old tweet 15 month :)
- 7y ago
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoIt's really unfortunate to see awful claims like "we are here to help build a better Internet and improving AMP is a huge step in that direction" that are blatantly dishonest and harmful to the Internet being promoted by Cloudflare in this blog post. AMP is a horrible cancer the Internet is plagued with, and we keep being told it's great even though literally nobody wants it. Claims like "Many of the sites we have spoken to get as much as 50% of their web traffic through AMP" ignore the fact that this is only true because it's been forced down our throats without our consent. Anyone implementing an AMP-based technology which doesn't come with a way for users to decline to participate is actively harming the open web. I like Cloudflare and a lot of what it does, but I'm really disappointed in them today.
- snek 7y agoI can definitely agree here, It's really disheartening to see this. When I saw this headline I first thought it was Cloudflare using some sort of cool trick to redirect users back to the proper non-amp page, but was just met with disappointment.
- SquareWheel 7y agoCloudflare hosts their own AMP Cache. It seems reasonable they'd adopt this as well.
- AlexCoventry 7y agoIf you use a different AMP cache than Google's, does it affect your search ranking/carousel positioning with them? If AMP is federated, that's a lot less disturbing to me than my first impression.
- SquareWheel 7y agoI don't know the answer to those questions, but I'd be curious to know as well. Bing also hosts an AMP Cache if that's of interest to you.
- 7y ago
- verisimilitudes 7y ago>The promise of the AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages) project was that it would make the web, and, in particular, the mobile web, much more pleasant to surf. That's, ostensibly, the goal, but anyone with an independent mind can tell it's just about control. >It was particularly aimed at publishers (such as news organizations) that wanted to provide the best, fastest web experience for readers catching up on news stories and in depth articles while on the move. It later became valuable for any site which values their mobile performance including e-commerce stores, job boards, and media sites. What a harrowing paragraph. >As well as the AMP HTML framework, AMP also made use of caches that store copies of AMP content close to end users so that they load as quickly as possible. Although this cache make loading web pages much, much faster they introduce a problem: An AMP page served from Google’s cache has a URL starting with https://google.com/amp/ https://google.com/amp/. This can be incredibly confusing for end users. This wasn't an issue before TLS everywhere was pushed, was it? The same organization that pushed for encryption, no matter how useless, Google, is now there to solve the problem of caching encrypted pages, centrally of course. >But the problems with the AMP cache approach are deeper than just some confusion on the part of the user. By serving the page from Google’s cache there’s no way for the reader to check the authenticity of the page; when it’s served directly from, say, the BBC the user has the assurance of the domain name, a green lock indicating that the SSL certificate is valid and can even click on the lock to get details of the certificate. There's already no foolproof way to do that. Rather than checking that it's actually BBC and BBC has verified what it's delivering, you instead ask a third party if this is the BBC and if what it's sending is true. >That signature is all a modern browser (currently just Chrome on Android) needs to show the correct URL in the address bar when a visitor arrives to your AMP content from Google’s search results. So, just as with ''DNS over HTTPS'' and other nonsense, this is yet another thing they want to pile on. >Importantly your site is still being served from Google’s AMP cache just as before; all of this comes without any cost to your SEO or web performance. Only fools and cretins care about SEO and ''web performance'' is solved by not having so much JavaScript and actually bothering to optimize images you send. >Brand Protection: Web users have been trained that the URL in the address bar has significance. Having google.com at the top of a page of content hurts the publisher’s ability to maintain a unique presence on the Internet. Not violating people already trained is very important. >Easier Analytics: AMP Real URL greatly simplifies web analytics for its users by allowing all visitors, AMP or otherwise, to coexist on the same tracking domain. Anyone using anything more than HTTP server logs, which are already too revealing, is likely a fool. >Increased Screen Space: Historically when AMP was used room would be taken for a “grey bar” at the top of your site to show the real URL. With AMP Real URL that’s simply not necessary. This sentence is only possible due to a dearth of independent implementations, which communicates a great deal about this nonsense. Also, it's nice to see Google beginning to kill URLs as it wanted to; lying in the UI is a good first step. >Content Signing: By relying on cryptographic techniques, AMP Real URL ensures that the content delivered to visitors has not been manipulated protecting the sites and brands it is used on. It’s now not possible for any external party to add, remove, or modify the content of a site. Remember when Cloudflare was spewing private information all over the Internet? >We are also taking this opportunity to sunset the other AMP products and experiments we have built over the years like Ampersand and Firebolt. Those products were innovative but we have learned that publishers value AMP products which pair well with Google’s search results, not which live outside it. Users of those older products were informed several weeks ago that they will be gradually shut down to focus our attention on AMP Real URL. Don't worry about this being shut down for the next big thing, though. >Our motivation is the same as for offering CDN or SSL services to millions of customers free of charge You mean subverting the Internet through increasing centralization and also enabling mass-spying by the perversion of the very encryption that's ostensibly so important? Does anyone actually think Cloudflare isn't a US government operation? They have so much hardware and they get so much support from these other companies that we know are paid off by the government.
- OnlyRepliesToBS 7y agook the web is getting hijacked
- wtmt 7y ago> If your site has AMP Real URL enabled Cloudflare will digitally sign the content we provide to that crawler, cryptographically proving it was generated by you. That signature is all a modern browser (currently just Chrome on Android) needs to show the correct URL in the address bar when a visitor arrives to your AMP content from Google’s search results. Is the dig (emphasized above) about what constitutes “a modern browser” really necessary? Is a modern browser now whichever one that supports something you like?
- motyar 7y agoIn related news: Google signed exchanges, Instant-loading AMP pages from your own domain https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2019/04/instant-loading-amp-pages-from-your-own.html https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2019/04/instant-loading-am...
- paavoova 7y agoI don't understand why AMP is targeted at the "mobile web". What exactly makes browsing the web on mobile different than other platforms?
- wmf 7y agoThe network is much slower and the CPU is much slower, so getting very good performance requires extreme optimization.
- gregable 7y agoThis, and in particular, the network has much higher _latency_ over mobile. AMP is aggressive about reducing the number of round trips between browser and server.
- paavoova 7y agoBut here [1] it says "One of AMP's biggest user benefits has been the unique ability to instantly load AMP web pages that users click on in Google Search. Near-instant loading works by requesting content ahead of time". So AMP content is implicitly prefetched. How is this any different than regular prefetching? And as far as mobile is concerned, the trivial optimizations that are available on desktop, such as firewalling by content type via e.g. uMatrix, are not at all advertised to end users. AFAIK Chrome browser on mobile does not allow such extensions. Page load times are significantly reduced by using such browser extensions effectively. Why skip to the "extreme" that is AMP? [1] https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2019/04/instant-loading-amp-pages-from-your-own.html https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2019/04/instant-loading-am...
- watermelon0 7y agoExtreme optimization that can be achieved without AMP. Performance of web pages is heavily dependent on the amount of assets and their size. Hacker News loads extremely quickly without AMP, and the same can be achieved for other sites. HTML/CSS (with a small amount of JS if really needed) can achieve the same thing as AMP regarding the web page size and rendering time. CDNs are well established and can be used to serve content from a nearby server, and HTTP/3 will reduce the number of round-trips needed.
- sudhirj 7y agoDespite all the hate against AMP, this will actually improve the state of a decentralised web. Disconnecting the web packaging feature from the application that birthed it, the format allows a website to sign its content and create an immutable package that any server in the world can distribute - with the signature allowing clients to trust where it came from and show the origin address instead of the cache. Isn't this exactly what the distributed web needs? This is a massive boon to IPFS (a content hash can still show the proper origin name), a big blow to censorship (a censored website could spread its content to a thousand different servers, each served over HTTPS, and viewers would still the original URL whichever cache they access), consensual permanent archiving, and much more?
- ocdtrekkie 7y agoQuestions for you: - Who decides which HTTPS certs are valid? (Followup: Who decides which of those your browser considers valid?) - Who operates the browsers you'd use to view this content which sees the original URL, and have any of those companies deplatformed content on behalf of government requests? Which is to say, web packaging looks somewhat decentralized at a glance but arguably still leaves the same handful of companies entirely in charge of deciding what you view and how you view it. And it's entirely dependent on your browser's developers being ethical and trustworthy, and choices on what browser you use has just shrunk significantly in the past month alone.
- magicalist 7y ago> Who decides which HTTPS certs are valid? Wait wait wait, are you telling me signed exchanges maintain the status quo on a problem they aren't intended to solve?
- sudhirj 7y agoThe packages are independently verifiable, and cacheable. Do you could start your own cache with a Raspberry Pi at home if you wanted, and if whatever browsers you trust implemented this check you’d have your own secure version of it.
- 0x54D5 7y agoAnother reason to never use Cloudflare again. Good job guys.
- judge2020 7y agoBased on the discussion from the Cloudflare announcement and here, I don't think people understand why Amp was created and is being heavily pushed by Google: global accessibility. Many countries, including India, are just now getting widespread broadband rollout. Due to its infancy, many ISPs have data caps and may even be delivering data over 4G/LTE to homes. With AMP, Google and CF have the privilege of driving all of this (search-driven) bandwidth to datacenters within the same country, or at least the same continent, to the visitor. If all of this content was really served from the origin, latency would be considerably worse since the data will have to go through the undersea cables and the performance issues that may occur with bad routing. You could also say the Data Saver web proxy they run is to encourage these users to browse the web without worrying as much about their phone data bill. Google really wants everyone in these countries to be using and depending on the Internet just as much as Americans use and depend on it, otherwise they may miss out on advertising $$$ potential from a country that's ~4.5 times more populated than the United States.
- chrischen 7y agoPeople in India aren't as interested in your average Western news site as you (presumably from the West) are.
- judge2020 7y agoFair. At this point, the focus has probably shifted from that since these ISPs and cell providers aren't as technically limited as the United States was 10-15 years ago. I feel like AMP started out this way at the core, "How can we ensure these web pages load fast and aren't eating up these users' data plans?", but then the dreaded parts of AMP like search rank preference, Google being the one in the URL bar, etc. were afterthoughts that were put in to make AMP widely adopted and to increase their stranglehold on the Internet as a whole.
- 48309248302 7y agoThat isn't a main reason. People are going to use the internet either way. Google is making a power grab by breaking web standards (embrace, extend, extinguish), and companies like Cloudflare are enabling them. Mozilla has marked Signed HTTP Exchanges as harmful.
- rob-olmos 7y agoFound this more lively page, apologies if cross-posting a comment is not allowed: Semi-related, I think Web Packages and Signed Exchanges could have some usefulness outside of Google's caches. One of their spec examples was for verifiable web page archives. Another idea it could be used for a wifi "drop box" (drop station?) when there's no internet connection around. That isn't uncommon at some popular spots up river into the woods in the US. The idea is that as people enter the area, they can update the drop station automatically for things like news or public posts with whatever they've cached recently. I'm pretty sure I read about this idea before the spec was drafted but I couldn't find or remember the site, something like vehicle-transported data.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- vortico 7y agoWho uses AMP? I've only ever heard of it on Hacker News but never seen it when using Google or any news websites. What actions does a normal user have to take to use AMP?
- colejohnson66 7y agoNothing. By default, Google will show you the AMP page when you tap a search result if it’s available
- vortico 7y agoIt's not working for me. Do I have to use Chrome on Android? I just tested on Firefox Linux, Chromium Linux, Safari iOS, and Firefox Android.
- echeese 7y agoLook for the lightning bolt when searching for news on Google on a mobile device.
- vortico 7y agoI don't see it. Here's a screenshot on Firefox Android. https://i.imgur.com/vuJavS8.png https://i.imgur.com/vuJavS8.png All the links go to cnn.com, usatoday.com, etc.
- r1ch 7y agoI'm rather worried about how closely Cloudflare is working with Google in pushing their proprietary stuff. I would have hoped they would be more neutral and take a similar position as Mozilla.
- m-p-3 7y agoI'll just keep using the Redirect AMP to HTML addon[1]. AMP links annoys me to no end. [1] https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/amp2html https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/amp2html
- cphoover 7y agoGlad cloudflare and Google are now ramming through de facto web standards without consensus from the rest of web and browser developers...