3 ms·
Indeed, I did. Glad you remembered it for me, that is a big one and another example of embrace, extend, extinguish leveraging the power of Google Search. I sup
by smush 7y ago
Indeed, I did. Glad you remembered it for me, that is a big one and another example of embrace, extend, extinguish leveraging the power of Google Search.
I suppose that's me in the super-privacy-nerd bubble. Having moved to Fastmail for email and using Firefox for Mobile + Startpage search, I almost never encounter Amp in my own SERPs (not that there's much AMP content out there for Clonk Endeavor ;P).
- d1zzy 7y agoI don't think it qualifies since anyone can go and implement AMP. If AMP extensions are being made which aren't documented and they are implemented only by closed source code in Google clients and servers then you can argue that they are leveraging their power to keep competition out. Otherwise the competition can simply implement AMP. Or let's look at it differently, if you are Google and find that a new, HTTP-incompatible protocol would make things better for a significant number of clients, how would you develop and push for that new standard in a way that people won't complain about anti-competitive behavior like you are complaining above? And are you sure that following those steps won't result in other people on HN complaining that it's anti-competitive?
- shkkmo 7y ago> how would you develop and push for that new standard in a way that people won't complain about anti-competitive behavior like you are complaining above? IMHO, google would have been fine if they had done everything the same but instead of basing mobile search results on AMP usage, they had based it on page load time metrics. EDIT: The issue with AMP is less that Google created a new standard and more the way that Google has tried to utilize its other properties to force adoption of that standard in ways that seem more focused on benefiting Google than the internet as a whole.