A Report From the AMP Advisory Committee Meeting (shkspr.mobi) 60
Programmer Terence Eden doesn't like Google's AMP. He thinks Google's Accelerated Mobile Pages are a bad idea, poorly executed, and almost-certainly anti-competitive. So, he decided to join the AC (Advisory Committee) for AMP, he said, adding that he did not want Google to be surrounded with sycophants and yes-men. Here are some recommendations he has made: 1. Publish all user research: Don't allow new components to be created without a clear user story and research to support them.
2. Accessibly audit: Don't validate pages which can't pass an automated a11y test.
3. Stop the forced bundling: Let users opt-out of seeing AMP pages. Don't require AMP for prominent placement. Stop discriminating against non-Google browsers.
4. Reconsider AMP4Email : Lots of concerns from smaller email providers. Security and archiving concerns. Work with the ecosystem rather than imposing.
2. Accessibly audit: Don't validate pages which can't pass an automated a11y test.
3. Stop the forced bundling: Let users opt-out of seeing AMP pages. Don't require AMP for prominent placement. Stop discriminating against non-Google browsers.
4. Reconsider AMP4Email : Lots of concerns from smaller email providers. Security and archiving concerns. Work with the ecosystem rather than imposing.
wait a second.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes you did. Now sit back and enjoy the crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
jesus christ what a dumb shit idea
If there is one lesson we may learn from the post-Eternal-September internet, that's that the more of a "jesus christ dumbshit idea" something is, the more people are going to flock to that thing.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Google's idea to run Google-hosted javascript in the inboxes of people who don't use GMail. Because God forbid that anyone receive an email they can't monetize.
Good luck! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Neither did MicroSoft. At least, not until the DoJ explained the high cost of having success at that sort of scheme.
Notice, MicroSoft never failed in the market. They never failed to push their contracts on resellers. And yet, they no longer consider it to be good business to try that stuff. Gee, I wonder why?
Google, however, does not wonder. They didn't notice that they're not the first. They have no concept of the history of their own industry. This blind spot might be created by their constant starting a
Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately the summary is a bit misleading so may have given you that impression. For example, it says he decided to join the AMP committee, but his blog [shkspr.mobi] says he was *asked* to join it.
As in Google contacted him, a vocal critic, and asked him to join.
Then if we read TFA we start to get a different picture again. Publishers don't like AMP because, get this, they spent time optimizing their sites to load faster for commercial advantage, and now AMP is helping the sites with fewer resources to keep up with them. Boo hoo, poor publishers.
He has a few interesting points but the summary is outright misleading.
Re: (Score:1)
??? AMP fucking sucks dude. It breaks Google as a search engine on mobile phones, assuming you think URLs have any value at all - if I'm searching for a URL on a mobile phone half the time I am going to be sending it to someone else. Can't do that with AMP. Publishers are cut out of revenue if they use AMP, and if they don't use AMP they get deranked - Google is using their monopoly power to cut off revenue for publishers. Lots of pages are just as fast with AMP and without there is absolutely no need for A
Re: (Score:2)
You pretty much have to have a four-digit Slashdot ID (or less) to seriously advance such a claim.
Fortunately, you've got a zero-digit ID, so it's all good.
But I liked the rest of your post quite a bit.
Re: Good luck! (Score:1)
No, publishers don't like AMP because they have to give up a substantial amount of control over how their site looks and operates. Anything that limits their ability to create and control advertising slots on their properties (and especially ones that are unique to their site, as those often fetch a premium) is an attack on their business. Similarly, top sites do a lot of work to keep you browsing so, with AMP, Google is attempting to seize that "stickiness" from publishers by exposing their content without
Re: (Score:2)
Then if we read TFA we start to get a different picture again. Publishers don't like AMP because, get this, they spent time optimizing their sites to load faster for commercial advantage, and now AMP is helping the sites with fewer resources to keep up with them. Boo hoo, poor publishers.
He has a few interesting points but the summary is outright misleading.
"Load faster for commercial advantage?" How are you managing to make thoughtful, standards-compliant web design into something sinister?
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's on you. You hear something sinister when the words are entirely neutral.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's on you. You hear something sinister when the words are entirely neutral.
I was not clear. What I should have said was, "In your world, how are you managing to make..."
Re: (Score:2)
Its users who hate AMP.
I am a user. I don't publish anything. I can't stand AMP because it breaks so many things about web expectations, and frankly, doesn't actually make things any noticeably faster.
Yet, its impossible to opt out of unless you abandon Chrome so that you can tell Google to stop serving it to you.
Guess what I am doing.
5. (Score:1)
5. Steal everyone's website in the world and make it appear like it's coming from google.com. This is to subvert everyone's copyright law and make us even more filthy rich. We've made a career out of stealing and profiting off of other people's works, so why should we respect anyone's copyright and their web domain presence?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The part you're wrong and deceptive about is where you use the word "Actually" at the start to make it sound like your comment is responsive to the comment you responded to. But it isn't.
You can't use just the feature you linked to. The link you provided explains that to use the "signed exchange" feature, you have to publish both the signed and unsigned versions. That means, you must allow Google to continue serving your web page themselves in order to be allowed to also serve it from your own server.(!)
Exc
So, basically: (Score:1)
Terence Eden: "Please don't be evil."
Google: "No."
His heart is in the right place (Score:2)
But points 3 and 4 make me think he doesn’t really understand the fundamental reason Google is pushing AMP.
AMP is a sign of the Chromopoly (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Finding more and more I'm using text browsers like lynx because not only are they faster, but they don't support javascript nor half the shit browsers now use to spy on users. I can still view something if there's an image I want to see.
I would love a browser like lynx with a "safe javascript" implementation, just enough js to extract links hidden behind js nonsense, to keep over-js'd pages navigable.
How about you make webpages better (Score:5, Interesting)
Better coding is needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when Palm thought everyone was going to re-do their websites for WAP? Yep, that idea went right down the cWAPper.
AMP is all about making sure mobile ads get served (Score:1)
AMP is all about making sure mobile ads get served so Google can get that sweet sweet ad revenue. Nothing else.
Re:AMP is all about making sure mobile ads get ser (Score:5, Interesting)
Hence the acronym Advertising Malware Pages.
I kinda like that, hope it sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
One key difference between Microsoft's "convenient" features in the 1990s and Google's "convenient" features now is that unlike Microsoft then, Google now is releasing said features under a free software license. This at least allows third parties who care to implement the same functionality and audit the features for capacity to spread malware. See the AMP Project on GitHub [github.com].
4 little words to faster web pages: (Score:4, Informative)
So... (Score:2)
I don't get it (Score:2)
AMP just breaks sites left and right. Reddit, for example, flat out doesn't work. Lots of news sites I can't scroll down past a certain point unless I edit the URL to remove the amp stuff. Surely I'm not the only one here. And this is on Chrome!
Does this process look familiar to anyone? (Score:2)
2. Build on a few god ideas.
3. Get noticed.
4. Enter stock market, let people invest into your business.
5. Exhaust the market and the pool of ideas while investors expect you to further innovative and make them profit.
6. Panic and start introducing pointless, unwanted features which only benefit yourself and your monopoly.
Community must revolt against (Score:1)
Until developing some amp pages for our sites, I did not care what is it... Just another google technical sh*t show.
It isn't. With careful programming you can reach same speeds.
And the problem is.
AMP is google adwords promotion tool for mobile users.
If you had AMP page and put an ad on it. Your pages skyrocketed.
After implementation, we get very low ad prices and dominate the top of the search ranking.
Later or sooner everybody do same thing for google ranking.
Then it begins industry standart then it becames