21 ms·

I strongly agree. Web developers and app designers should work to build fast, performant web sites that use bandwidth carefully because that's good for end user

I strongly agree. Web developers and app designers should work to build fast, performant web sites that use bandwidth carefully because that's good for end users. But the entire AMP approach to doing this is questionable, and as we have seen over the years it appears to act more like a way to give Google more undeserved and unnecessary control over what should be an open web. More broadly, I consider this yet another reason to avoid using Google properties where possible. They have shown themselves to be bullies and bad actors who want to control the internet and oppose an open web. I recommend simply not building AMP pages at all, but instead working to build high quality, performant websites which gracefully handle device size changes and lack of javascript.

wrycoder 7y ago
Yes, it’s one thing to promote a cleaner and faster web though better design and implementation. It’s another thing for Google to use its effectively monopoly power to enforce that. As the FA says, Google didn’t invent the web or create its content - what gives them the moral right to take it over? I think the collective web will eventually fix the problems without Google. The root of the AMP issue is placement in Google’s search engine. Personally, I use DDG, and would be willing to pay a sizable subscription fee to keep it from being more like Google or from being acquired. But, most people probably would not - they are used to the web being “free”. This is just another “embrace, extend, extinguish” effort, like the ones we have seen in the past. These attacks are transparently self-serving and should be “routed around”. It will require commitment to do so!
- deogeo 7y ago
  > Yes, it’s one thing to promote a cleaner and faster web though better design and implementation. It’s another thing for Google to use its effectively monopoly power to enforce that. AMP is more than just cleaner and faster - it gives Google control. They could discriminate on cleaner and faster without it, but they purposefully don't mention that, since it would undercut the push for AMP.
alexfromapex 7y ago
Agreed, it is yet another Google data collection method created under the guise of a beneficial offering
- nuccy 7y ago
  Firefox for Android seems to solve this "issue" for me completely, after I started to use it, Google stopped to show AMP pages to me, even in News section all the links are direct. So use mobile Firefox, I find it too be very good these days, no regrets. I still have Chrome (just in case), but I didn't use it since.
throwthisaway2 7y ago
Performance has not been a concern for about 10 years. Its all about dev speed. The amount of boilerplate loaded is wasting so much energy across the world. Our libraries are becoming more bloated.
kypro 7y ago
> I recommend simply not building AMP pages at all, but instead working to build high quality, performant websites which gracefully handle device size changes and lack of javascript. Doesn't matter. Google will penalise against not AMP sites. Let's not pretend there's a choice if you want people to find your content.
- scblock 7y ago
  There is a choice. It might not be easy but it is right, and no monopoly is forever.
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    So, I guess that there's an one-line script in robots.txt to prevent Google from crawling my website?
izacus 7y ago
> I strongly agree. Web developers and app designers should work to build fast, performant web sites that use bandwidth carefully because that's good for end users. They should, but they didn't. Before AMP most of the web was unusable on slower Android phones and frontenders just laughed at you and told you to drop 800$ on an iPhone if you want to see their pages. Is it a surprise that Google shoved a technology to fix web on their platform down developers throats? Nothing else before AMP helped. Why do you think those developers will suddenly wake up and start building lightweight web pages now? Instead of ad bloated, video playing monstrosities? Web developers were slothful. This is how purgatory looks like. ;)
- corodra 7y ago
  To be fair most web dev practices are all based on silly notions of tracking and crappy UI ideas made by idiots. Animating in blocks of text is what I'm mostly referring to, but theres plenty more. Take twitter for example. A tweet takes about 10mb to load. Based on something I did about a year ago. To put that in perspective, information transfer wise, war and peace is like 800kb. The whole book. 280 char or whatever, of a single page tweet being 10mb is moronic. Reddit bit the same stupid bug with their redesign. The biggest problem, everyone is complacent and thinks "this is what progress looks like and you're a curmudgeon boomer if you think otherwise." Forethought in real sustainability, both environmentally and sociologically is looked on as impeding progress. Just like when small amounts of devs a decade ago said we need to be careful of big tech companies with our data. They were shot down and that push for "break things fast" became the name of the game. Now everyone says tax dollars must be spent for 5g because "we need the bandwidth". No, more people need to be less stupid. Mostly consumers. But devs need to start taking a stronger stance in outing bullshit tactics these businesses are implementing and quit going on their knees to pray to the silicon valley giants as some great saviors of society and their wealth is an indication of their genius. Ugh... got into a rant...
  - BlueTemplar 7y ago
    As a "millennial" (urgh), that has already been using the Web in the previous millennium, I agree.
3xblah 7y ago
"18. By Keith Devon on September 7, 2018 at 11:04 If Google only cares about a faster, more semantic web, then why not just give an even bigger ranking boost to faster, more semantic websites? Where does the need for a new standard come in, other than to gain more control?" The above is a comment found in the OP. Is there a requirement that AMP sites host resources with Google? If there is, then Google has hijacked the purported goal of of promoting websites that consume fewer client resources (and are therefore faster) -- arguably a worthy cause -- in order to promote the use of Google's own web servers,[1] thereby increasing Google's data gathering potential. If there is no such requirement, then is it practical for any website to host an AMP-compliant site, without using Google web servers? If not, then AMP sure looks a lot like an effort to get websites to host more resources on Google web servers and help generate more data for Google. 1. When I use the term "web servers" in this comment I mean servers that host any resource, e.g., images, scripts, etc., that is linked to from within a web page (and thus automatically accessed by popular graphical web browsers such as Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge, etc.)
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  > Is there a requirement that AMP sites host resources with Google? Bing's AMP cache doesn't load any resources from Google.
  - 3xblah 7y ago
    "What AMP Caches are available? Currently, there are two AMP Cache providers: * Google AMP Cache * Bing AMP Cache AMP is an open ecosystem and the AMP Project actively encourages the development of more AMP Caches. To learn about creating AMP Caches, see the AMP Cache Guidelines. How do I choose an AMP Cache? As a publisher, you don't choose an AMP Cache, it's actually the platform that links to your content that chooses the AMP Cache (if any) to use." The above is from amp.dev, formerly ampproject.org As the dominant search engine/web portal (excuse me, "platform"), already having the largest web cache and the infrastructure to maintain it, it looks like Google therefore becomes the dominant AMP cache as well.
    - 7y ago
mrb 7y ago
«the entire AMP approach to doing this is questionable» Why? AMP is roughly speaking a subset of HTML that's somewhat easier to cache, and nothing more. Ideally it should be possible and encouraged to serve most webpages from a cache, to optimize Internet traffic on the global scale. It should be okay to fetch them from a cache without breaking anything. I don't see why the AMP Cache is hated so much. Publishers shouldn't care whether browsers hit their servers or some third-party cache, as long as they can have proper analytics. And guess what? AMP does provide a way to do proper analytics. You can even send analytics data to an in-house URL: https://amp.dev/documentation/components/amp-analytics/#sending-data-in-house https://amp.dev/documentation/components/amp-analytics/#send... I think most of the hate against AMP in unjustified. Any search engine could decide to cache AMP content.[1] AMP in and of itself doesn't give search engines "more control" over the web (whatever that means), it just makes the web easier to cache for everyone, all search engines, all end-users. Edit: [1] not only Google caches it, Bing does it too: https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2018/Introducing-Bing-AMP-viewer-and-Bing-AMP-cache https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2018/Introdu...
- leereeves 7y ago
  I'll let Google explain what's wrong with AMP[1]: > What's in a URL? On the web, a lot - URLs and origins represent, to some extent, trust and ownership of content. When you're reading a New York Times article, a quick glimpse at the URL gives you a level of trust that what you're reading represents the voice of the New York Times. Attribution, brand, and ownership are clear. > the recent launch of AMP in Google Search [has] blurred this line > Google AMP Viewer URL: The document displayed in an AMP viewer (e.g., when rendered on the search result page). https://www.google.com/amp/www.example.com/amp.doc.html https://www.google.com/amp/www.example.com/amp.doc.html Google has inserted itself in the URL. Copy and paste that, submit it to reddit or Hacker News, or just read it to a friend, and what do you get? A connection to Google. 1: https://developers.googleblog.com/2017/02/whats-in-amp-url.html https://developers.googleblog.com/2017/02/whats-in-amp-url.h...
  - mrb 7y ago
    But anybody (Bing, Yahoo, etc) can "insert themselves in the URL" if they decide to cache the AMP content. In fact they could also cache non-AMP pages if they wanted. This isn't a problem created by AMP in and of itself. You can't even make the argument that AMP degrades privacy, because regardless of whether you click an AMP link or a non-AMP link in the search results, in both cases many search engines will ping back or use a redirect through a search engine-controlled domain, so they will be aware of the URL you click anyway, AMP or non-AMP.
z3t4 7y ago
If AMP somehow manages to sell quality and performance, (whether you use AMP or not), that's mission accomplished!

wrycoder 7y ago

Yes, it’s one thing to promote a cleaner and faster web though better design and implementation. It’s another thing for Google to use its effectively monopoly power to enforce that. As the FA says, Google didn’t invent the web or create its content - what gives them the moral right to take it over? I think the collective web will eventually fix the problems without Google. The root of the AMP issue is placement in Google’s search engine. Personally, I use DDG, and would be willing to pay a sizable subscription fee to keep it from being more like Google or from being acquired. But, most people probably would not - they are used to the web being “free”. This is just another “embrace, extend, extinguish” effort, like the ones we have seen in the past. These attacks are transparently self-serving and should be “routed around”. It will require commitment to do so!

deogeo 7y ago
> Yes, it’s one thing to promote a cleaner and faster web though better design and implementation. It’s another thing for Google to use its effectively monopoly power to enforce that. AMP is more than just cleaner and faster - it gives Google control. They could discriminate on cleaner and faster without it, but they purposefully don't mention that, since it would undercut the push for AMP.

alexfromapex 7y ago

Agreed, it is yet another Google data collection method created under the guise of a beneficial offering

nuccy 7y ago
Firefox for Android seems to solve this "issue" for me completely, after I started to use it, Google stopped to show AMP pages to me, even in News section all the links are direct. So use mobile Firefox, I find it too be very good these days, no regrets. I still have Chrome (just in case), but I didn't use it since.

throwthisaway2 7y ago

Performance has not been a concern for about 10 years. Its all about dev speed. The amount of boilerplate loaded is wasting so much energy across the world. Our libraries are becoming more bloated.

kypro 7y ago

> I recommend simply not building AMP pages at all, but instead working to build high quality, performant websites which gracefully handle device size changes and lack of javascript. Doesn't matter. Google will penalise against not AMP sites. Let's not pretend there's a choice if you want people to find your content.

scblock 7y ago
There is a choice. It might not be easy but it is right, and no monopoly is forever.
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  So, I guess that there's an one-line script in robots.txt to prevent Google from crawling my website?

izacus 7y ago

> I strongly agree. Web developers and app designers should work to build fast, performant web sites that use bandwidth carefully because that's good for end users. They should, but they didn't. Before AMP most of the web was unusable on slower Android phones and frontenders just laughed at you and told you to drop 800$ on an iPhone if you want to see their pages. Is it a surprise that Google shoved a technology to fix web on their platform down developers throats? Nothing else before AMP helped. Why do you think those developers will suddenly wake up and start building lightweight web pages now? Instead of ad bloated, video playing monstrosities? Web developers were slothful. This is how purgatory looks like. ;)

corodra 7y ago
To be fair most web dev practices are all based on silly notions of tracking and crappy UI ideas made by idiots. Animating in blocks of text is what I'm mostly referring to, but theres plenty more. Take twitter for example. A tweet takes about 10mb to load. Based on something I did about a year ago. To put that in perspective, information transfer wise, war and peace is like 800kb. The whole book. 280 char or whatever, of a single page tweet being 10mb is moronic. Reddit bit the same stupid bug with their redesign. The biggest problem, everyone is complacent and thinks "this is what progress looks like and you're a curmudgeon boomer if you think otherwise." Forethought in real sustainability, both environmentally and sociologically is looked on as impeding progress. Just like when small amounts of devs a decade ago said we need to be careful of big tech companies with our data. They were shot down and that push for "break things fast" became the name of the game. Now everyone says tax dollars must be spent for 5g because "we need the bandwidth". No, more people need to be less stupid. Mostly consumers. But devs need to start taking a stronger stance in outing bullshit tactics these businesses are implementing and quit going on their knees to pray to the silicon valley giants as some great saviors of society and their wealth is an indication of their genius. Ugh... got into a rant...
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  As a "millennial" (urgh), that has already been using the Web in the previous millennium, I agree.

3xblah 7y ago

"18. By Keith Devon on September 7, 2018 at 11:04 If Google only cares about a faster, more semantic web, then why not just give an even bigger ranking boost to faster, more semantic websites? Where does the need for a new standard come in, other than to gain more control?" The above is a comment found in the OP. Is there a requirement that AMP sites host resources with Google? If there is, then Google has hijacked the purported goal of of promoting websites that consume fewer client resources (and are therefore faster) -- arguably a worthy cause -- in order to promote the use of Google's own web servers,[1] thereby increasing Google's data gathering potential. If there is no such requirement, then is it practical for any website to host an AMP-compliant site, without using Google web servers? If not, then AMP sure looks a lot like an effort to get websites to host more resources on Google web servers and help generate more data for Google. 1. When I use the term "web servers" in this comment I mean servers that host any resource, e.g., images, scripts, etc., that is linked to from within a web page (and thus automatically accessed by popular graphical web browsers such as Chrome, Safari, Firefox, Edge, etc.)

lern_too_spel 7y ago
> Is there a requirement that AMP sites host resources with Google? Bing's AMP cache doesn't load any resources from Google.
- 3xblah 7y ago
  "What AMP Caches are available? Currently, there are two AMP Cache providers: * Google AMP Cache * Bing AMP Cache AMP is an open ecosystem and the AMP Project actively encourages the development of more AMP Caches. To learn about creating AMP Caches, see the AMP Cache Guidelines. How do I choose an AMP Cache? As a publisher, you don't choose an AMP Cache, it's actually the platform that links to your content that chooses the AMP Cache (if any) to use." The above is from amp.dev, formerly ampproject.org As the dominant search engine/web portal (excuse me, "platform"), already having the largest web cache and the infrastructure to maintain it, it looks like Google therefore becomes the dominant AMP cache as well.
  - 7y ago

mrb 7y ago

«the entire AMP approach to doing this is questionable» Why? AMP is roughly speaking a subset of HTML that's somewhat easier to cache, and nothing more. Ideally it should be possible and encouraged to serve most webpages from a cache, to optimize Internet traffic on the global scale. It should be okay to fetch them from a cache without breaking anything. I don't see why the AMP Cache is hated so much. Publishers shouldn't care whether browsers hit their servers or some third-party cache, as long as they can have proper analytics. And guess what? AMP does provide a way to do proper analytics. You can even send analytics data to an in-house URL: https://amp.dev/documentation/components/amp-analytics/#sending-data-in-house https://amp.dev/documentation/components/amp-analytics/#send... I think most of the hate against AMP in unjustified. Any search engine could decide to cache AMP content.[1] AMP in and of itself doesn't give search engines "more control" over the web (whatever that means), it just makes the web easier to cache for everyone, all search engines, all end-users. Edit: [1] not only Google caches it, Bing does it too: https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2018/Introducing-Bing-AMP-viewer-and-Bing-AMP-cache https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2018/Introdu...

leereeves 7y ago
I'll let Google explain what's wrong with AMP[1]: > What's in a URL? On the web, a lot - URLs and origins represent, to some extent, trust and ownership of content. When you're reading a New York Times article, a quick glimpse at the URL gives you a level of trust that what you're reading represents the voice of the New York Times. Attribution, brand, and ownership are clear. > the recent launch of AMP in Google Search [has] blurred this line > Google AMP Viewer URL: The document displayed in an AMP viewer (e.g., when rendered on the search result page). https://www.google.com/amp/www.example.com/amp.doc.html https://www.google.com/amp/www.example.com/amp.doc.html Google has inserted itself in the URL. Copy and paste that, submit it to reddit or Hacker News, or just read it to a friend, and what do you get? A connection to Google. 1: https://developers.googleblog.com/2017/02/whats-in-amp-url.html https://developers.googleblog.com/2017/02/whats-in-amp-url.h...
- mrb 7y ago
  But anybody (Bing, Yahoo, etc) can "insert themselves in the URL" if they decide to cache the AMP content. In fact they could also cache non-AMP pages if they wanted. This isn't a problem created by AMP in and of itself. You can't even make the argument that AMP degrades privacy, because regardless of whether you click an AMP link or a non-AMP link in the search results, in both cases many search engines will ping back or use a redirect through a search engine-controlled domain, so they will be aware of the URL you click anyway, AMP or non-AMP.

z3t4 7y ago

If AMP somehow manages to sell quality and performance, (whether you use AMP or not), that's mission accomplished!