5 ms·

AMP is fundamentally broken. I've said this before, I'll say it again: companies are not people. Once a company reaches a certain size, the rule is to assume b

AMP is fundamentally broken. I've said this before, I'll say it again: companies are not people. Once a company reaches a certain size, the rule is to assume bad faith. Always.

ttctciyf 6y ago
In the present case, the failure to provide an opt-out speaks volumes. If AMP was a good faith attempt to improve UX, it would have been provided early on. The faceless imposition of AMP is a clear signal of malign intent, IMO.
- enos_feedler 6y ago
  malign? I think the imposition of AMP was the only solution to a problem with 3 constraints: 1) make web pages fast, without shitty popups on mobile 2) make this happen for large coverage of heavily visited pages 3) make this happen quickly (OKRs are on quarter/annual cadence) Imagine you owned Google Search and you were afraid for your life that everything was moving into native apps because the experience was better. As a search engine, you only control the front door and not the content. What do you do?
  - stevenjohns 6y ago
    ...start punishing slow websites by de-ranking them? The same way they have punished poor content in the past? The same method that worked every single time they've done it? You seem to believe that they don't have any other options which is wrong. They have a lot of options at their disposal and they intentionally chose a very hostile one.
    - enos_feedler 6y ago
      it isn't about slow web pages. It is about unwinding a shitty user experience that mobile magnified. How do you punish a shitty UX?
  - ttctciyf 6y ago
    If you want to avoid looking like malware, you can attempt to improve mobile browsing but let the user choose to opt out via search settings. Pretty simple solution, no?
Akronymus 6y ago
AMP was the final straw to get me to switch to DDG. Which was a GOOD decision IMO.
cjfd 6y ago
C.G. Jung once wrote that the moral capabilities of a group of people is 'obviously' inversely proportional to the size of the group. C.G. Jung was a funny guy. He would write a controversial statement and prefix it with something like 'obviously' or 'as everyone knows'. C.G. Jungs statement would also apply to nations and it sounds pretty much correct in that case too.

AMP is fundamentally broken. I've said this before, I'll say it again: companies are not people. Once a company reaches a certain size, the rule is to assume bad faith. Always.

ttctciyf 6y ago

In the present case, the failure to provide an opt-out speaks volumes. If AMP was a good faith attempt to improve UX, it would have been provided early on. The faceless imposition of AMP is a clear signal of malign intent, IMO.

enos_feedler 6y ago
malign? I think the imposition of AMP was the only solution to a problem with 3 constraints: 1) make web pages fast, without shitty popups on mobile 2) make this happen for large coverage of heavily visited pages 3) make this happen quickly (OKRs are on quarter/annual cadence) Imagine you owned Google Search and you were afraid for your life that everything was moving into native apps because the experience was better. As a search engine, you only control the front door and not the content. What do you do?
- stevenjohns 6y ago
  ...start punishing slow websites by de-ranking them? The same way they have punished poor content in the past? The same method that worked every single time they've done it? You seem to believe that they don't have any other options which is wrong. They have a lot of options at their disposal and they intentionally chose a very hostile one.
  - enos_feedler 6y ago
    it isn't about slow web pages. It is about unwinding a shitty user experience that mobile magnified. How do you punish a shitty UX?
- ttctciyf 6y ago
  If you want to avoid looking like malware, you can attempt to improve mobile browsing but let the user choose to opt out via search settings. Pretty simple solution, no?

Akronymus 6y ago

AMP was the final straw to get me to switch to DDG. Which was a GOOD decision IMO.

cjfd 6y ago

C.G. Jung once wrote that the moral capabilities of a group of people is 'obviously' inversely proportional to the size of the group. C.G. Jung was a funny guy. He would write a controversial statement and prefix it with something like 'obviously' or 'as everyone knows'. C.G. Jungs statement would also apply to nations and it sounds pretty much correct in that case too.