5 ms·
Thank God AMP is dying... If you are looking to develop a specification for preloading go through the browser standards process, instead of unloading this prop
by cphoover 5y ago
Thank God AMP is dying...
If you are looking to develop a specification for preloading go through the browser standards process, instead of unloading this proprietary crap on the rest of us.
- skybrian 5y agoWhy should it be a browser standard? It’s a web framework. Browsers already support it. Google did promote some improvements to web standards but they were never tied to AMP, even though they were things AMP would use.
- cphoover 5y agoBecause without going through the standards process it is a unilateral de-facto standard that has been pushed on the web without community involvement.
- skybrian 5y agoShould React be a web standard? How about Typescript? AMP being built into browsers wouldn't be an improvement. These technologies are built on top of web standards. It's a different level of the stack.
- foolfoolz 5y agoamp wasn’t a problem. amp prioritized results in search was a problem and i just saw here they slowed down ads on non-amp pages, that’s not good for business
- uncomputation 5y agoNo, AMP was a problem. It was a proprietary, ham-fisted subset of the open web entirely forced by Google’s insane search engine dominance. It actively discouraged the creativity, freedom, and self-determination of the web that makes it so special. The AMP boost in search ranking was just the cherry on top.
- lelandfe 5y agoAnd that’s not even discussing the fact that Google penalized non-Google ads on AMP. https://mobile.twitter.com/simonw/status/1451947624513167363 https://mobile.twitter.com/simonw/status/1451947624513167363
- AlexandrB 5y agoThis is exactly right. Imagine a hypothetical where Microsoft created AMP - no one would use it! The technology itself sucked. The only reason some publishers adopted AMP at all was to get/maintain favourable placement on Google, the only search engine that matters. I'm just hoping that the death of AMP on the web will also kill Google's ambitions for rolling it into Gmail[1]. [1] https://developers.google.com/gmail/ampemail/ https://developers.google.com/gmail/ampemail/
- nightpool 5y agoThe idea of a proven-safe subset of HTML with no custom JS that's suitable for adding interactivity to emails is actually really interesting to me, and I hope it continues. It's been really great to be able to reply to Google Docs comments from within my email client, and the same things that make AMP good for rehosting make it a good foundation for interactive email.
- afavour 5y agoIMO AMP was still a problem. It’s a version of HTML de facto controlled by Google. There’s window dressing of a foundation or whatever but Google calls the shots on what it does and does not do. To me that made AMP a five alarm fire right from the start.
- jaywalk 5y agoAnd it had to be proxied through Google's servers. To hell with it.
- 0des 5y agoI'm curious if anybody else is noticing how G is tracing the same paths AOL once did.
- cardosof 5y agoYes and Google too shall pass.
- eternalban 5y agoWould be nice to have a post-mortem on 'how to recognize the outline of an emerging juggernaut'.
- 0des 5y agoCloudflare, take note.
- jeffbee 5y agoThis is false.
- jaywalk 5y agoWhy, because there's also a Bing AMP proxy? Come on. AMP pages in Google search results are proxied through Google 100% of the time, by design.
- stingraycharles 5y agoAMP pages being hosted by Google is a pretty big problem as well, though. In my opinion a step in the wrong direction of the centralization of the internet.
- tdeck 5y agoTwitter has become incredibly hostile to users not signed into an account (e.g. many search visitors), so AMP or not isn't going to make a big difference.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pnw 5y agoAgreed. They've made it almost unusable if you hit it from an embedded browser page.
- lern_too_spel 5y agoAMP was built using existing web standards, which means publishers don't have to wait half a decade before Safari lets them use it.