7 ms·

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 co

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.
        jeffbee 5y ago
        What you're complaining about is that Google frames the carousel results, which is a completely legitimate complaint, but which is not really related to AMP as such. Edited to add: An example of where the same content is not framed by the same search engine is on Chrome Mobile's new tab page "articles for you". Many of these are directly links to unframed AMP content, such as what I'm seeing right now: seekingalpha.com/amp/..., thehill.com/...?amp etc
- nightpool 5y ago
  As a web developer, I really value the extra speed that having my page served from an AMP cache + predictive prefetching gives me. And now that signed exchanges have shipped, giving up the top X pixels and the URL bar are no longer required trade-offs to get that value.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    "now that signed exchanges have shipped" For Chrome, yes.
    - nightpool 5y ago
      That's a good point. Webkit's opposition to Signed Exchanges (ironically, canonically expressed in an HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19679621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19679621) means that I'm stuck with AMP for good performance on iOS for the foreseeable future.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        Not just WebKit. Mozilla is opposed, too. And they have a whole document on Web Packaging: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ha00dSGKmjoEh2mRiG8FIA5sJ1KihTuZe-AXX1r8P-8/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ha00dSGKmjoEh2mRiG8FIA5s...
        nightpool 5y ago
        Sure, I've read Mozilla's standard-position document and I understand their objections, I'm just saying that Webkit's objection is the major blocker to me personally adopting sxg (since Firefox is basically 0% of my mobile traffic)
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.

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.
      - jeffbee 5y ago
        What you're complaining about is that Google frames the carousel results, which is a completely legitimate complaint, but which is not really related to AMP as such. Edited to add: An example of where the same content is not framed by the same search engine is on Chrome Mobile's new tab page "articles for you". Many of these are directly links to unframed AMP content, such as what I'm seeing right now: seekingalpha.com/amp/..., thehill.com/...?amp etc
nightpool 5y ago
As a web developer, I really value the extra speed that having my page served from an AMP cache + predictive prefetching gives me. And now that signed exchanges have shipped, giving up the top X pixels and the URL bar are no longer required trade-offs to get that value.
- tyingq 5y ago
  "now that signed exchanges have shipped" For Chrome, yes.
  - nightpool 5y ago
    That's a good point. Webkit's opposition to Signed Exchanges (ironically, canonically expressed in an HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19679621 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19679621) means that I'm stuck with AMP for good performance on iOS for the foreseeable future.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      Not just WebKit. Mozilla is opposed, too. And they have a whole document on Web Packaging: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ha00dSGKmjoEh2mRiG8FIA5sJ1KihTuZe-AXX1r8P-8/edit https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ha00dSGKmjoEh2mRiG8FIA5s...
      - nightpool 5y ago
        Sure, I've read Mozilla's standard-position document and I understand their objections, I'm just saying that Webkit's objection is the major blocker to me personally adopting sxg (since Firefox is basically 0% of my mobile traffic)

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.