4 ms·
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 shot
by 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 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.
- afavour 5y agoIn fairness AMP does not have a requirement to use a CDN. It allows the use of a CDN which was another reason why Google pushed it (to do all kind of same-domain tricks), but to keep on topic, I actually don't think Twitter used that Google cache.
- jaywalk 5y agoIf Twitter was serving valid AMP, they didn't have a choice on using the Google cache or not: "As a publisher, you don't choose an AMP Cache, it's actually the platform that links to your content that chooses the AMP Cache (if any) to use." "Caching is a core part of the AMP ecosystem. Publishing a valid AMP document automatically opts it into cache delivery." https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/learn/amp-caches-and-cors/how_amp_pages_are_cached/ https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/learn/amp...
- afavour 5y agoEh? By your own quote: > it's actually the platform that links to your content that chooses the AMP Cache (if any) to use Twitter (the platform that links to AMP content) could choose which AMP cache if any to use. Oh, I guess maybe the confusion here is that your argument is that as a page publisher you cannot opt out of the Google CDN? I read your original statement as "it is not possible to view AMP content without using the Google CDN"
- jaywalk 5y agoRight, I'm mainly just talking about Google search results. I probably should have made that more clear up front.
- 5y ago
- RNCTX 5y agoI wonder why someone who works at google bothers to come here to try to defend the worst practices of the company. I mean, it's never going to go well. Is it some sort of deranged catharsis in trying to convince yourself?
- enkrs 5y agoGoogle calls the shots on what the web does and does not do via the majority browser - Chrome. I wouldn't consider AMP any more dangerous than Chrome in this argument. There were other problems with AMP.
- afavour 5y agoI'm certainly not a fan of a Chrome monoculture either but AMP crossed all browsers so I see it as more dangerous.
- avereveard 5y agoamp was the modern attempt to replicate the turd that was wireless application protocol and I'm glad it's dying. I'm also glad the community mood shifted about it, no longer than a year ago negative comments about amp where drowned in downvotes luckily vote count doesn't make ppl right or wrong.
- SquareWheel 5y ago> no longer than a year ago negative comments about amp where drowned in downvotes This is the strangest case of revisionist history I've ever seen.