6 ms·

Without their monopoly search position no one would be forced to adopt amp and further strengthen said monopoly position.

joshuamorton 7y ago
How does amp strengthen a monopoly position?
- stephenr 7y ago
  It strengthens googles control over the web.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    In what way though? Like that's super generic and not particularly meaningful without a more concrete explanation.
    - underdown 7y ago
      Traffic never leaving Google's servers seems pretty concrete.
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        You can self host AMP. It doesn’t have to be on google’s servers.
        stephenr 7y ago
        But the traffic coming from Google results will always view it from Google servers.
    - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
      No, there's nothing like super generic about it. Google has a de facto monopoly on site rankings, which gives it de facto editorial control over the content of the Internet down to a very fine level. If Google decides to drop a site from search, that site loses traffic and is effectively removed from visibility. This is not a user choice. Users do not to get to say "Well, that site is too slow for me, so I won't visit it again. And actually I don't like the content either." It's not a site owner choice. Owners can't respond to user preferences by improving performance or offering different content. It's a Google choice. And the reasons for Google's choices are typically opaque, largely unstated, and never negotiated directly with site owners. It's absolutely unacceptable for a single unaccountable corporation to have this level level of control over global information infrastructure. In fact the whole idea of generic but opaque site ranking is toxic to an open Internet, and always has been. The idea that page rank has some kind of objective user value - as opposed to monopoly value - has always been debatable. It was tolerable conceit in the days of Alta Vista when search was a research project, and some level of good faith was assumed. But Google has trashed that good faith by operating like a bad actor - and monopolist - in numerous ways, AMP being the most recent example. So no - not generic. Not even close.
      - shawnz 7y ago
        What you're arguing against is opaque site rankings. But what does that have to do with AMP as a technology? How does AMP enable them to have more opaque rankings than before? All the control you're talking about is something they'd have regardless of the existence of AMP.
        nothrabannosir 7y ago
        AMP is an example of the bad faith exercising of that monopoly. Bad faith because we judge it by the negative press: there is considerable push back and controversy, yet it remains. That alone separates it from other factors like “actual page speed”, which is also used but which everyone agrees with, which is why it’s considered good faith. No need to judge it based on its technical merit: a significant amount of people hate it, yet here it is. End of. This is not a legal question (yet), this is a moral question. The legal [and technical] question is relevant, but not the be all end all of any discussion. People sometimes also just want to discuss how they feel. It’s relevant to get consensus about that. And people feel bad about AMP.
- RonanTheGrey 7y ago
  "Use AMP or your site will not be present in mobile search results" doesn't seem like monopolistic practices to you?
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    A priori not anymore so than otherwise downranking slow sites. The missing piece here is how using amp is beneficial to Google or harmful to consumers/other search engines to make it anticompetative.
    - bscphil 7y ago
      > how using amp is beneficial to Google You are correct, most people are leaving this out. I think an emphasis on asking why Google is pushing AMP, and whether that interest aligns with consumers, would be helpful in this thread.
      - stephenr 7y ago
        Most people seem to intrinsically understand that a single browser-making ad company dictating what features a website can or can not use is about that company flexing it's muscles to control things. Is that really not obvious to some?
        bscphil 7y ago
        > Most people seem to intrinsically understand that a single browser-making ad company dictating what features a website can or can not use is about that company flexing it's muscles to control things. But the point made up-thread was that "controlling things" is not intrinsically bad. The problem was that (according to some users) Google was abusing a monopoly position to control things in a way that would be beneficial to itself, but harmful to others. The question the parent to my comment was asking was, beneficial to itself how? You saying that Google is "controlling things" just takes us back to where we started, but doesn't answer the question of what Google stands to gain. Let me give an example. Suppose by "controlling things" you mean incentivizing ("""forcing""") web developers to create pages that are better because they have lighter scripts and higher security standards for third party content. (In fact, this is what some supporters say Google is doing.) I don't think most people would have a problem with that. So presumably critics have something interesting to say about what "controlling things" really means that explains why it's bad in this particular case.
- dmitriid 7y ago
  In case joshuamorton forgets to disclose in a thread, he currently works at Google.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
lern_too_spel 7y ago
> Without their monopoly search position no one would be forced to adopt amp It is used by the major search engines in every major market, so yes, they would be forced to adopt AMP. Compare to Apple News, which gives the publisher even less control. Once again, how is it abusing their monopoly position if all their competitors get to benefit from it for free? Finally, how do you propose to enable safe prerendering on the web that you would be fine with? RSS enables the same thing but takes even more control away from the publisher, but you're presumably fine with that. Not a single person in all these AMP rant articles that pollute HN has ever proposed an alternative, with 99% of the ranters, including this one, not even understanding the basic fact that prerendering is the thing that AMP enables.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  I don’t want prerendering if it comes with this attached to it. Fast pages don’t need prerendering.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    Tell that to Apple, Facebook, and RSS aggregators, all of which do the same thing but worse. Whether or not you want it, I and apparently most other users do want it.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      As has been mentioned before, what Apple, Facebook, and RSS aggregators are doing is quite different than what Google is: they're not purporting to be search engines.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        And how is that any different? The end result is they're forcing publishers to use their format.
        7y ago

joshuamorton 7y ago

How does amp strengthen a monopoly position?

stephenr 7y ago
It strengthens googles control over the web.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  In what way though? Like that's super generic and not particularly meaningful without a more concrete explanation.
  - underdown 7y ago
    Traffic never leaving Google's servers seems pretty concrete.
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      You can self host AMP. It doesn’t have to be on google’s servers.
      - stephenr 7y ago
        But the traffic coming from Google results will always view it from Google servers.
  - TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
    No, there's nothing like super generic about it. Google has a de facto monopoly on site rankings, which gives it de facto editorial control over the content of the Internet down to a very fine level. If Google decides to drop a site from search, that site loses traffic and is effectively removed from visibility. This is not a user choice. Users do not to get to say "Well, that site is too slow for me, so I won't visit it again. And actually I don't like the content either." It's not a site owner choice. Owners can't respond to user preferences by improving performance or offering different content. It's a Google choice. And the reasons for Google's choices are typically opaque, largely unstated, and never negotiated directly with site owners. It's absolutely unacceptable for a single unaccountable corporation to have this level level of control over global information infrastructure. In fact the whole idea of generic but opaque site ranking is toxic to an open Internet, and always has been. The idea that page rank has some kind of objective user value - as opposed to monopoly value - has always been debatable. It was tolerable conceit in the days of Alta Vista when search was a research project, and some level of good faith was assumed. But Google has trashed that good faith by operating like a bad actor - and monopolist - in numerous ways, AMP being the most recent example. So no - not generic. Not even close.
    - shawnz 7y ago
      What you're arguing against is opaque site rankings. But what does that have to do with AMP as a technology? How does AMP enable them to have more opaque rankings than before? All the control you're talking about is something they'd have regardless of the existence of AMP.
      - nothrabannosir 7y ago
        AMP is an example of the bad faith exercising of that monopoly. Bad faith because we judge it by the negative press: there is considerable push back and controversy, yet it remains. That alone separates it from other factors like “actual page speed”, which is also used but which everyone agrees with, which is why it’s considered good faith. No need to judge it based on its technical merit: a significant amount of people hate it, yet here it is. End of. This is not a legal question (yet), this is a moral question. The legal [and technical] question is relevant, but not the be all end all of any discussion. People sometimes also just want to discuss how they feel. It’s relevant to get consensus about that. And people feel bad about AMP.
RonanTheGrey 7y ago
"Use AMP or your site will not be present in mobile search results" doesn't seem like monopolistic practices to you?
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  A priori not anymore so than otherwise downranking slow sites. The missing piece here is how using amp is beneficial to Google or harmful to consumers/other search engines to make it anticompetative.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    > how using amp is beneficial to Google You are correct, most people are leaving this out. I think an emphasis on asking why Google is pushing AMP, and whether that interest aligns with consumers, would be helpful in this thread.
    - stephenr 7y ago
      Most people seem to intrinsically understand that a single browser-making ad company dictating what features a website can or can not use is about that company flexing it's muscles to control things. Is that really not obvious to some?
      - bscphil 7y ago
        > Most people seem to intrinsically understand that a single browser-making ad company dictating what features a website can or can not use is about that company flexing it's muscles to control things. But the point made up-thread was that "controlling things" is not intrinsically bad. The problem was that (according to some users) Google was abusing a monopoly position to control things in a way that would be beneficial to itself, but harmful to others. The question the parent to my comment was asking was, beneficial to itself how? You saying that Google is "controlling things" just takes us back to where we started, but doesn't answer the question of what Google stands to gain. Let me give an example. Suppose by "controlling things" you mean incentivizing ("""forcing""") web developers to create pages that are better because they have lighter scripts and higher security standards for third party content. (In fact, this is what some supporters say Google is doing.) I don't think most people would have a problem with that. So presumably critics have something interesting to say about what "controlling things" really means that explains why it's bad in this particular case.
dmitriid 7y ago
In case joshuamorton forgets to disclose in a thread, he currently works at Google.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

lern_too_spel 7y ago

> Without their monopoly search position no one would be forced to adopt amp It is used by the major search engines in every major market, so yes, they would be forced to adopt AMP. Compare to Apple News, which gives the publisher even less control. Once again, how is it abusing their monopoly position if all their competitors get to benefit from it for free? Finally, how do you propose to enable safe prerendering on the web that you would be fine with? RSS enables the same thing but takes even more control away from the publisher, but you're presumably fine with that. Not a single person in all these AMP rant articles that pollute HN has ever proposed an alternative, with 99% of the ranters, including this one, not even understanding the basic fact that prerendering is the thing that AMP enables.

saagarjha 7y ago
I don’t want prerendering if it comes with this attached to it. Fast pages don’t need prerendering.
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  Tell that to Apple, Facebook, and RSS aggregators, all of which do the same thing but worse. Whether or not you want it, I and apparently most other users do want it.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    As has been mentioned before, what Apple, Facebook, and RSS aggregators are doing is quite different than what Google is: they're not purporting to be search engines.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      And how is that any different? The end result is they're forcing publishers to use their format.
      - 7y ago