4 ms·

I think you're conflating 2 things. User do want AMP-like technologies. I want the browser to restrict the publishers as much as possible (while keeping their

by tomp 8y ago

I think you're conflating 2 things. User do want AMP-like technologies. I want the browser to restrict the publishers as much as possible (while keeping their sites "useful" for some definition of the word - static markup such as text, images and some background/styling is definitely useful) - I actively do that by preventing them from auto-playing videos, using adblocking, etc. However, Google-controlled AMP is a travesty. I don't want to view websites on Google. I want the original URLs, I want to be able to bookmark it and share it, I want to be able to go to the non-mobile website etc. Keep AMP, banish Google.

altmind 8y ago
Users want fast loading speed, not specifically AMP. And quite often fast loading speed can be achieved by merely removing the bloat from your pages.
panarky 8y ago
> Keep AMP, banish Google Cloudflare != Google
- tomp 8y ago
  Well it only works in Google Chrome so...
Wowfunhappy 8y ago
Short of some kind of large user survey—which would be difficult because I doubt many users actually know what AMP is—we're never going to know whether users want it. Personally, I don't want to get a gimped version of a web page, I want the real thing. Yes some websites suck, but at least I'm getting the definitive copy. AMP versions often miss content or have weird layouts. Sadly, I also really like Google Search—their results are much better than Bing or Duck Duck Go in my experience—so I don't have a choice in the matter.
ocdtrekkie 8y ago
First: This doesn't remove you viewing websites on Google. It gives you the original URLs, but they're still being served by Google. In short, this is enabling Google to lie to you about where the website is coming from, it doesn't banish Google. Secondly: We have restricted views and formats for websites already, and they're far superior to AMP. Things like RSS, which most websites support already and I use daily, and Reader View available in both Firefox and Edge, which strips out everything but the core page content. These already exist, are superior to AMP, except in one key area: AMP is built to serve Google Ads, whereas RSS and Reader View strip them out. AMP is not a good technology for users, AMP is a technology to protect Google and give them more control over the web.
- tomp 8y ago
  > this is enabling Google to lie to you about where the website is coming from, it doesn't banish Google. I understand, which is why I'm pro AMP but anti Google-specific AMP.
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    I would argue Bing or Baidu having the same power isn't inherently better.
JohnFen 8y ago
> User do want AMP-like technologies. Some users do. Some don't. I certainly don't want AMP-like technologies, regardless of where the cache is. > I want the browser to restrict the publishers as much as possible In the browser where I can control it, sure. I don't disagree at all. On a third party server where I have no control over it, no.

by tomp 8y ago

altmind 8y ago

Users want fast loading speed, not specifically AMP. And quite often fast loading speed can be achieved by merely removing the bloat from your pages.

panarky 8y ago

> Keep AMP, banish Google Cloudflare != Google

tomp 8y ago
Well it only works in Google Chrome so...

Wowfunhappy 8y ago

Short of some kind of large user survey—which would be difficult because I doubt many users actually know what AMP is—we're never going to know whether users want it. Personally, I don't want to get a gimped version of a web page, I want the real thing. Yes some websites suck, but at least I'm getting the definitive copy. AMP versions often miss content or have weird layouts. Sadly, I also really like Google Search—their results are much better than Bing or Duck Duck Go in my experience—so I don't have a choice in the matter.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

First: This doesn't remove you viewing websites on Google. It gives you the original URLs, but they're still being served by Google. In short, this is enabling Google to lie to you about where the website is coming from, it doesn't banish Google. Secondly: We have restricted views and formats for websites already, and they're far superior to AMP. Things like RSS, which most websites support already and I use daily, and Reader View available in both Firefox and Edge, which strips out everything but the core page content. These already exist, are superior to AMP, except in one key area: AMP is built to serve Google Ads, whereas RSS and Reader View strip them out. AMP is not a good technology for users, AMP is a technology to protect Google and give them more control over the web.

tomp 8y ago
> this is enabling Google to lie to you about where the website is coming from, it doesn't banish Google. I understand, which is why I'm pro AMP but anti Google-specific AMP.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  I would argue Bing or Baidu having the same power isn't inherently better.

JohnFen 8y ago

> User do want AMP-like technologies. Some users do. Some don't. I certainly don't want AMP-like technologies, regardless of where the cache is. > I want the browser to restrict the publishers as much as possible In the browser where I can control it, sure. I don't disagree at all. On a third party server where I have no control over it, no.