4 ms·

If Google's servers pre-cache the contents of the article, the experience is instant when you click on a link, so the idea that it's slower to read a Google Amp

If Google's servers pre-cache the contents of the article, the experience is instant when you click on a link, so the idea that it's slower to read a Google Amp Link on a Google Search Result compared to clicking out to a separate website is false. If a publisher simply uses Google Amp on their own site to display websites, then it can be slower. They slowed the non-AMP ads because they didn't want loading them to interfere with the content the user was interested in reading.

ocdtrekkie 5y ago
> They slowed the non-AMP ads because they didn't want loading them to interfere with the content the user was interested in reading. This is what Google may have told the public, and obviously would like you to believe. However, internal Google emails demonstrate very differently: AMP was designed to increase Google's ad revenue. Same source: "Google ad server employees met with AMP employees to strategize about using AMP to impede header bidding, and how much pressure publishers and advertisers would tolerate."
- jefftk 5y ago
  Link to the internal emails? I've read a lot of the emails that came out in the lawsuit, and haven't seen any demonstrating that.
  - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
    The link I'm referencing doesn't so much as unredact all of the facts listed here, I'm not sure the public has access to the emails described in this complaint at this time. If you know of a publicly accessible cache of internal Google emails sourced from legal discovery processes, I'd love to know about it!
    - jefftk 5y ago
      The unredacted AMP lawsuit is: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903.152.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.56... I'm not aware of other sources of internal emails on this topic. What were you referring to when you wrote: "internal Google emails demonstrate very differently: AMP was designed to increase Google's ad revenue."?
      - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
        Ah, the unredacted version is quite a bit nicer to read, thank you. I was referring to the text in the complaint: The complaint is written off the legal discovery process, presumably in the case of especially a tech company such as Google, the statement that these teams met and discussed this topic would presumably be found in the form of either a meeting invite or the notes from a meeting sent in an internal email. I think within some margin of interpretation, it's reasonable to state that if the text in the complaint is as such, it's backed by one or more internal emails I personally don't have access to. As I think it's pretty implausible that the Texas AG invented a meeting between the ad team and the AMP team and a reason for it out of thin air.
        magicalist 5y ago
        > I think within some margin of interpretation, it's reasonable to state that if the text in the complaint is as such, it's backed by one or more internal emails I personally don't have access to. ec109685's explanation seems plausible and could easily be misexplained in this way if your goal was to get quotes on twitter. > As I think it's pretty implausible that the Texas AG invented a meeting between the ad team and the AMP team and a reason for it out of thin air. It doesn't have to be out of thin air to be exaggerated or misconstrued. And I definitely wouldn't rely on indicted Attorney General Ken Paxton for ethical behavior or an even handed application of the law.
        ocdtrekkie 5y ago
        I can understand your suspicion of Ken Paxton, but this is also part of a very high profile case involving dozens of states and literally hundreds of attorneys. And the precise nature of the claims will likely be still being litigated on ten years from now. So there's a lot of incentive to be accurate on the claims out of the gate. That being said, I think it'd be great if all the material in the discovery process was available to the public. A company of Google's size has no excuse to operate in the dark.
        5y ago

ocdtrekkie 5y ago

> They slowed the non-AMP ads because they didn't want loading them to interfere with the content the user was interested in reading. This is what Google may have told the public, and obviously would like you to believe. However, internal Google emails demonstrate very differently: AMP was designed to increase Google's ad revenue. Same source: "Google ad server employees met with AMP employees to strategize about using AMP to impede header bidding, and how much pressure publishers and advertisers would tolerate."

jefftk 5y ago
Link to the internal emails? I've read a lot of the emails that came out in the lawsuit, and haven't seen any demonstrating that.
- ocdtrekkie 5y ago
  The link I'm referencing doesn't so much as unredact all of the facts listed here, I'm not sure the public has access to the emails described in this complaint at this time. If you know of a publicly accessible cache of internal Google emails sourced from legal discovery processes, I'd love to know about it!
  - jefftk 5y ago
    The unredacted AMP lawsuit is: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903/gov.uscourts.nysd.564903.152.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.56... I'm not aware of other sources of internal emails on this topic. What were you referring to when you wrote: "internal Google emails demonstrate very differently: AMP was designed to increase Google's ad revenue."?
    - ocdtrekkie 5y ago
      Ah, the unredacted version is quite a bit nicer to read, thank you. I was referring to the text in the complaint: The complaint is written off the legal discovery process, presumably in the case of especially a tech company such as Google, the statement that these teams met and discussed this topic would presumably be found in the form of either a meeting invite or the notes from a meeting sent in an internal email. I think within some margin of interpretation, it's reasonable to state that if the text in the complaint is as such, it's backed by one or more internal emails I personally don't have access to. As I think it's pretty implausible that the Texas AG invented a meeting between the ad team and the AMP team and a reason for it out of thin air.
      - magicalist 5y ago
        > I think within some margin of interpretation, it's reasonable to state that if the text in the complaint is as such, it's backed by one or more internal emails I personally don't have access to. ec109685's explanation seems plausible and could easily be misexplained in this way if your goal was to get quotes on twitter. > As I think it's pretty implausible that the Texas AG invented a meeting between the ad team and the AMP team and a reason for it out of thin air. It doesn't have to be out of thin air to be exaggerated or misconstrued. And I definitely wouldn't rely on indicted Attorney General Ken Paxton for ethical behavior or an even handed application of the law.
        ocdtrekkie 5y ago
        I can understand your suspicion of Ken Paxton, but this is also part of a very high profile case involving dozens of states and literally hundreds of attorneys. And the precise nature of the claims will likely be still being litigated on ten years from now. So there's a lot of incentive to be accurate on the claims out of the gate. That being said, I think it'd be great if all the material in the discovery process was available to the public. A company of Google's size has no excuse to operate in the dark.
        5y ago