8 ms·

amp 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 ago
No, 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 ago
  And 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 ago
  This 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 ago
    The 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 ago
IMO 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 ago
  And it had to be proxied through Google's servers. To hell with it.
  - 0des 5y ago
    I'm curious if anybody else is noticing how G is tracing the same paths AOL once did.
    - cardosof 5y ago
      Yes and Google too shall pass.
      - eternalban 5y ago
        Would be nice to have a post-mortem on 'how to recognize the outline of an emerging juggernaut'.
        0des 5y ago
        Cloudflare, take note.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    This is false.
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      Why, 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 ago
AMP 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.

uncomputation 5y ago

No, 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 ago
And 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 ago
This 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 ago
  The 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 ago

IMO 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 ago
And it had to be proxied through Google's servers. To hell with it.
- 0des 5y ago
  I'm curious if anybody else is noticing how G is tracing the same paths AOL once did.
  - cardosof 5y ago
    Yes and Google too shall pass.
    - eternalban 5y ago
      Would be nice to have a post-mortem on 'how to recognize the outline of an emerging juggernaut'.
      - 0des 5y ago
        Cloudflare, take note.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  This is false.
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    Why, 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 ago

AMP 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.