5 ms·

The article is also surprised that people are still using AMP now that it's no longer required, because in the author's mind, AMP is so god dang awful that when

The article is also surprised that people are still using AMP now that it's no longer required, because in the author's mind, AMP is so god dang awful that when given the chance, everyone would immediately want to get rid of it. Some people are so deeply lost in their hatred of AMP that they cannot even consider for a moment that maybe, just maybe, AMP actually does work well for some people. I'm glad it's no longer required, and if people are correct that AMP truly sucks, then surely it'll slowly fade away over time.

BrianOnHN 5y ago
My opinion is regularly "unpopular" here on HN, but I happen to love AMP. Sometimes constraints can be a blessing. Don't want to over engineer? Use AMP. Of course you can over engineer anything, but why would you when [almost] everything you need is easy to grab a la carte.
- corty 5y ago
  I would like to introduce my set of constraints called "cortyNet": - no JavaScript - you get 100kB for HTML and CSS - all decorative and non-essential images are included in those 100kB Happy hacking!
- tssva 5y ago
  I'm not a web developer but as a user I love AMP. For whatever issues it has it did significantly help mobile performance. Could developers have solved that issue with AMP? Yes Did developers solve the issue prior to AMP forcing them to? No.
- tyingq 5y ago
  To me, nobody would willingly give up the most important part of their page's real estate (the top X pixels) and the branding value of what it says in the url bar...unless there was a tradeoff that made it worth it. As far as I can tell, carousel placement was that tradeoff. Until recently, you weren't allowed in unless you were on AMP. Also, I'm not sure this is well known, but if you navigate to a web page from the carousel, Google traps the left and right swipe events on YOUR page. Either sends to user to a competitor. That's a pretty big compromise you would only make because the traffic boost from the carousel was worth it.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    There's nothing about AMP that requires anyone to give up any part of their page. The presentation you are talking about is a feature of only certain AMP hosting services. A lot of organizations host their own AMP sites, like Conde Nast magazines. Example: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/qualcomms-new-snapdragon-888-plus-soc-has-a-new-name-not-much-else/?amp=1 https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/qualcomms-new-snapdr...
    - tyingq 5y ago
      Yes, I'm speaking exclusively of Google's AMP cache, which I assume dwarfs any other in numbers of notable users. Edit: As for Conde Nast, I found this article: https://technology.condenast.com/story/the-why-and-how-of-google-amp-at-conde-nast https://technology.condenast.com/story/the-why-and-how-of-go... The diagram[1] suggests the Google AMP cache is (or was) in front of users, and they also say this: "AMP helps us satisfy these needs. AMP increases the visibility and discoverability of our content by allowing it to be included in Google’s Top News Carousel, as well as improving the experience of regular Google search results" That sounds a lot like what I said. [1] https://media.condenast.io/photos/59a57e16cf742825d0b02891/master/w_680/AMP-Arch.png https://media.condenast.io/photos/59a57e16cf742825d0b02891/m...
      - jeffbee 5y ago
        The article directly contradicts your claim. People can use Google's CDN without losing control of any part of their content. It's just a CDN.
        tyingq 5y ago
        So, from Chrome mobile, I searched for "springsteen anti-vaccine". The first carousel entry is a CondeNast property, vanityfair.com, with an AMP lightning bolt icon. I click it, and get this: https://imgur.com/a/2W3oWSW https://imgur.com/a/2W3oWSW The top bar is Google controlled. The url in the omnibar is a google url. So I'm not seeing how Conde Nast is a good example here. Before they very recently rescinded the requirement, using a non-Google AMP cache meant you didn't get into the carousel.
- uncomputation 5y ago
  How is having to use “amp” attributes and loading a script from ampproject dot org simpler than just not doing that and everything works with every browser and without JavaScript and you don’t have any dependencies on Google servers? AMP as a subset of existing HTML is fine, but at that point it’s just a style guide. AMP as the existing invasive species it is just adds more complexity to an already complex web “ecosystem.” Google did not invent or even perfect maintainable web pages so why should I have to “grab” anything from them on the supposedly decentralized web?
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Google's amp cache presumably enforces the "you can only use these specific html tags and this limited subset of javascript" (or whatever the requirements are). That's valuable.
tyingq 5y ago
"Some people are so deeply lost in their hatred of AMP that they cannot even consider for a moment that maybe, just maybe, AMP actually does work well for some people." My assumption is that AMP is most heavily used by news organizations because of the requirement (recently rescinded) for carousel placement. Anecdotal, but I've talked with people at these organizations, and they definitely don't like AMP. They tolerate AMP solely for the carousel placement. That requirement is gone now. But, given the low margins in those places, it may be some time before they migrate off.
- rchaud 5y ago
  Not just news, any website that still monetizes on the ad-supported "blog" model. So, videogame websites, sports websites, entertainment/gossip sites, you name it.
mikro2nd 5y ago
> "because in the author's mind, AMP is so god dang awful that when given the chance, everyone would immediately want to get rid of it" You must be a mind reader, then, because nowhere in the article does the author state or imply that. Indeed, they go out of their way to point out why it's unlikely in the extreme that any publisher will bother, and points out why that's essentially a victory for Google -- indeed this might be the essential point that the author is making in this article.
djrogers 5y ago
> The article is also surprised that people are still using AMP now that it's no longer required It feels like we read different articles, because the in one I read the author spent a lot of time explaining that AMP would probably be around for a while for a number of predictable reasons.

BrianOnHN 5y ago

My opinion is regularly "unpopular" here on HN, but I happen to love AMP. Sometimes constraints can be a blessing. Don't want to over engineer? Use AMP. Of course you can over engineer anything, but why would you when [almost] everything you need is easy to grab a la carte.

corty 5y ago
I would like to introduce my set of constraints called "cortyNet": - no JavaScript - you get 100kB for HTML and CSS - all decorative and non-essential images are included in those 100kB Happy hacking!
tssva 5y ago
I'm not a web developer but as a user I love AMP. For whatever issues it has it did significantly help mobile performance. Could developers have solved that issue with AMP? Yes Did developers solve the issue prior to AMP forcing them to? No.
tyingq 5y ago
To me, nobody would willingly give up the most important part of their page's real estate (the top X pixels) and the branding value of what it says in the url bar...unless there was a tradeoff that made it worth it. As far as I can tell, carousel placement was that tradeoff. Until recently, you weren't allowed in unless you were on AMP. Also, I'm not sure this is well known, but if you navigate to a web page from the carousel, Google traps the left and right swipe events on YOUR page. Either sends to user to a competitor. That's a pretty big compromise you would only make because the traffic boost from the carousel was worth it.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  There's nothing about AMP that requires anyone to give up any part of their page. The presentation you are talking about is a feature of only certain AMP hosting services. A lot of organizations host their own AMP sites, like Conde Nast magazines. Example: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/qualcomms-new-snapdragon-888-plus-soc-has-a-new-name-not-much-else/?amp=1 https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/qualcomms-new-snapdr...
  - tyingq 5y ago
    Yes, I'm speaking exclusively of Google's AMP cache, which I assume dwarfs any other in numbers of notable users. Edit: As for Conde Nast, I found this article: https://technology.condenast.com/story/the-why-and-how-of-google-amp-at-conde-nast https://technology.condenast.com/story/the-why-and-how-of-go... The diagram[1] suggests the Google AMP cache is (or was) in front of users, and they also say this: "AMP helps us satisfy these needs. AMP increases the visibility and discoverability of our content by allowing it to be included in Google’s Top News Carousel, as well as improving the experience of regular Google search results" That sounds a lot like what I said. [1] https://media.condenast.io/photos/59a57e16cf742825d0b02891/master/w_680/AMP-Arch.png https://media.condenast.io/photos/59a57e16cf742825d0b02891/m...
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      The article directly contradicts your claim. People can use Google's CDN without losing control of any part of their content. It's just a CDN.
      - tyingq 5y ago
        So, from Chrome mobile, I searched for "springsteen anti-vaccine". The first carousel entry is a CondeNast property, vanityfair.com, with an AMP lightning bolt icon. I click it, and get this: https://imgur.com/a/2W3oWSW https://imgur.com/a/2W3oWSW The top bar is Google controlled. The url in the omnibar is a google url. So I'm not seeing how Conde Nast is a good example here. Before they very recently rescinded the requirement, using a non-Google AMP cache meant you didn't get into the carousel.
uncomputation 5y ago
How is having to use “amp” attributes and loading a script from ampproject dot org simpler than just not doing that and everything works with every browser and without JavaScript and you don’t have any dependencies on Google servers? AMP as a subset of existing HTML is fine, but at that point it’s just a style guide. AMP as the existing invasive species it is just adds more complexity to an already complex web “ecosystem.” Google did not invent or even perfect maintainable web pages so why should I have to “grab” anything from them on the supposedly decentralized web?
- judge2020 5y ago
  Google's amp cache presumably enforces the "you can only use these specific html tags and this limited subset of javascript" (or whatever the requirements are). That's valuable.

tyingq 5y ago

"Some people are so deeply lost in their hatred of AMP that they cannot even consider for a moment that maybe, just maybe, AMP actually does work well for some people." My assumption is that AMP is most heavily used by news organizations because of the requirement (recently rescinded) for carousel placement. Anecdotal, but I've talked with people at these organizations, and they definitely don't like AMP. They tolerate AMP solely for the carousel placement. That requirement is gone now. But, given the low margins in those places, it may be some time before they migrate off.

rchaud 5y ago
Not just news, any website that still monetizes on the ad-supported "blog" model. So, videogame websites, sports websites, entertainment/gossip sites, you name it.

mikro2nd 5y ago

> "because in the author's mind, AMP is so god dang awful that when given the chance, everyone would immediately want to get rid of it" You must be a mind reader, then, because nowhere in the article does the author state or imply that. Indeed, they go out of their way to point out why it's unlikely in the extreme that any publisher will bother, and points out why that's essentially a victory for Google -- indeed this might be the essential point that the author is making in this article.

djrogers 5y ago

> The article is also surprised that people are still using AMP now that it's no longer required It feels like we read different articles, because the in one I read the author spent a lot of time explaining that AMP would probably be around for a while for a number of predictable reasons.