4 ms·

The whole AMP thing seems anti-competitive and hostile to the open web. It's a really bad look on Google's part to be pushing this.

earthboundkid 6y ago
There has been no regulatory action since Microsoft (which happened as Google was being born), so the tech giants have forgotten fear and no longer self-regulate out of simple self-interest.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Another way of looking at it is: they absolutely are self-regulating. And it appears to be a problem. Another problem is, there's effectively no distinction between regulator and regulatee.
  - realusername 6y ago
    > Another way of looking at it is: they absolutely are self-regulating. If they do that, it's not really visible, I don't see any regulation with how Google is behaving regarding search & web, if anything it looks like anti-competitive monopoly behaviours.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
      Ya'll misunderstood. Self-regulating in the same way an alcoholic meth addict self-regulates.
      - Ensorceled 6y ago
        Most of us understand, it's just that your "word play" is not helpful.
raverbashing 6y ago
I am conflicted Yes, AMP is an anti-competitive move by Google At the same time AMP is "faster" because it gets rid of all the nagware and JS crap that the original page has. So yeah, I don't like what Google is doing but I don't like what NYT is doing neither
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > At the same time AMP is "faster" because it gets rid of all the nagware and JS crap that the original page has Google gives preference to AMP content whether the source page is lightning fast or not. I get the frustration with crappy web pages, but a big part of the reason web pages are getting increasingly crappy is because Google and Facebook (and to a much lessor extent Amazon in a weird way) have a stranglehold on the web advertising market and publishers are getting smaller and smaller slices of advertising revenue. AMP increases Google's lock on the market. Since AMP pages can only really be monetized by the publisher, this puts even more power in Google's hands.
- markosaric 6y ago
  It is ironic considering that 7 out of top 10 most used third party connections on websites are owned by Google. So you can see why there must be some kind of internal struggle at Google. They understand the value of a faster web but they also cannot go after the main cause of the slow web. And this is how technology such as AMP gets invented and makes things worse. https://markosaric.com/google-amp/ https://markosaric.com/google-amp/
- moksly 6y ago
  AMP is faster? I’ve never been on an AMP page where I didn’t eventually need to go to the actual site to get the full content. So it’s really just an annoying step between me and the content I searched for. It’s been one of the primary things that’s driven me away from google and into DDG. I don’t really care about privacy enough to leave google, but I end up leaving more and more of their services because their competition is just less annoying.
- amelius 6y ago
  But why allow a third party (Google in this case) to collect data on your reading behavior on NYT?
lern_too_spel 6y ago
In what way is it anti-competitive? Google's competitors also consume AMP pages and prerender them using AMP caches. Anti-competitive would be requiring the publishers to integrate directly with Google like Apple News, not asking the publishers to publish pages that all link aggregators can consume.
- icebraining 6y ago
  Google Search uses its monopoly to push their own AMP cache. I can't search in Google and load the content through Bing's AMP cache.
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    > their own AMP cache I'm confused, you make it sound like a free CDN is somehow a bad thing. You do realize people actually pay money to have their content on a CDN. I don't think Bing makes money on their AMP cache, and doubt they would want or even allow Google to link to content on their AMP cache... The point of AMP cache is for Google (and Bing) to waste money making content faster for their users, in the hope that the user will then spend more time on search so they see more ads. The cache itself has nothing to do with the monopoly, and the fact that Bing can use AMP at all (since its open source) to get the same benefits actually shows the exact opposite.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    > Google Search uses its monopoly to push their own AMP cache. I can't search in Google and load the content through Bing's AMP cache. That's nonsensical. That would reveal what the person searched for to a third party (Microsoft) even if they don't click on any results. The AMP Cache has to be controlled by the link aggregator in order to support safe prerendering, so Bing's AMP cache is used to prerender Bing results, and Google's AMP cache is used to prerender Google results. Compare to directly integrating with Google, in which case, Bing wouldn't get to take advantage of prerendering. The latter (the Apple News setup) is anti-competitive. AMP is not.

earthboundkid 6y ago

There has been no regulatory action since Microsoft (which happened as Google was being born), so the tech giants have forgotten fear and no longer self-regulate out of simple self-interest.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Another way of looking at it is: they absolutely are self-regulating. And it appears to be a problem. Another problem is, there's effectively no distinction between regulator and regulatee.
- realusername 6y ago
  > Another way of looking at it is: they absolutely are self-regulating. If they do that, it's not really visible, I don't see any regulation with how Google is behaving regarding search & web, if anything it looks like anti-competitive monopoly behaviours.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    Ya'll misunderstood. Self-regulating in the same way an alcoholic meth addict self-regulates.
    - Ensorceled 6y ago
      Most of us understand, it's just that your "word play" is not helpful.

raverbashing 6y ago

I am conflicted Yes, AMP is an anti-competitive move by Google At the same time AMP is "faster" because it gets rid of all the nagware and JS crap that the original page has. So yeah, I don't like what Google is doing but I don't like what NYT is doing neither

ogre_codes 6y ago
> At the same time AMP is "faster" because it gets rid of all the nagware and JS crap that the original page has Google gives preference to AMP content whether the source page is lightning fast or not. I get the frustration with crappy web pages, but a big part of the reason web pages are getting increasingly crappy is because Google and Facebook (and to a much lessor extent Amazon in a weird way) have a stranglehold on the web advertising market and publishers are getting smaller and smaller slices of advertising revenue. AMP increases Google's lock on the market. Since AMP pages can only really be monetized by the publisher, this puts even more power in Google's hands.
markosaric 6y ago
It is ironic considering that 7 out of top 10 most used third party connections on websites are owned by Google. So you can see why there must be some kind of internal struggle at Google. They understand the value of a faster web but they also cannot go after the main cause of the slow web. And this is how technology such as AMP gets invented and makes things worse. https://markosaric.com/google-amp/ https://markosaric.com/google-amp/
moksly 6y ago
AMP is faster? I’ve never been on an AMP page where I didn’t eventually need to go to the actual site to get the full content. So it’s really just an annoying step between me and the content I searched for. It’s been one of the primary things that’s driven me away from google and into DDG. I don’t really care about privacy enough to leave google, but I end up leaving more and more of their services because their competition is just less annoying.
amelius 6y ago
But why allow a third party (Google in this case) to collect data on your reading behavior on NYT?

lern_too_spel 6y ago

In what way is it anti-competitive? Google's competitors also consume AMP pages and prerender them using AMP caches. Anti-competitive would be requiring the publishers to integrate directly with Google like Apple News, not asking the publishers to publish pages that all link aggregators can consume.

icebraining 6y ago
Google Search uses its monopoly to push their own AMP cache. I can't search in Google and load the content through Bing's AMP cache.
- ehsankia 6y ago
  > their own AMP cache I'm confused, you make it sound like a free CDN is somehow a bad thing. You do realize people actually pay money to have their content on a CDN. I don't think Bing makes money on their AMP cache, and doubt they would want or even allow Google to link to content on their AMP cache... The point of AMP cache is for Google (and Bing) to waste money making content faster for their users, in the hope that the user will then spend more time on search so they see more ads. The cache itself has nothing to do with the monopoly, and the fact that Bing can use AMP at all (since its open source) to get the same benefits actually shows the exact opposite.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  > Google Search uses its monopoly to push their own AMP cache. I can't search in Google and load the content through Bing's AMP cache. That's nonsensical. That would reveal what the person searched for to a third party (Microsoft) even if they don't click on any results. The AMP Cache has to be controlled by the link aggregator in order to support safe prerendering, so Bing's AMP cache is used to prerender Bing results, and Google's AMP cache is used to prerender Google results. Compare to directly integrating with Google, in which case, Bing wouldn't get to take advantage of prerendering. The latter (the Apple News setup) is anti-competitive. AMP is not.