Hacker News Reader

Comment by manigandham | Hacker News Reader

Nobody else wants to parse or host it because HTML works just fine. We don't need a new version from Google that so far only helps with search result visibility while losing flexibility and increasing the amount of effort publishers need to effectively maintain 2 copies of their site. This is a regression back to the days of WAP mobile sites.

It also does lock-in the users into Google's experience rather than actually visiting the site, which is a big issue, including problems like further centralizing traffic and data to a single company.

Google could easily penalize search results based on speed with a strict cutoff and the entire web would become faster within weeks. Also the largest ad server on the web is Google's own doubleclick which is one of the slowest. There are many better ways to improve performance and UX without AMP.

View on HN

Nobody else wants to parse it because HTML is a perfectly well functioning and accepted system

Apple and Facebook, two of the largest content (re)publishers, have their own competing formats, and Bing currently spiders and parses AMP content as well. But thinking more holistically, many others simply pushed their content into apps, abandoning the web wholesale. Because while we can talk about how "well functioning" the web is, a virtually universal observation is that native apps that just wrap a web browser are sloggy garbage, and a big reason is that the HTML stack has grown so enormously flexible it becomes its own enemy.

We don't need a new version from Google that so far only helps with google rankings

I'm a charitable sort of person, so when someone like Google comes out with something I assess why they did it without presuming the worst. In this case we see silos appearing from Apple and Facebook, not to mention the appification of content, so Google looks for a way to keep the web compelling. And it is. When I see an AMP page there are a number of user-centric benefits that make it a draw as a link, not just speed but also best behaviors.

I mean, many of the complaints on here about AMP seem just surreal. For instance if you open the carousel (an option for trending topics like Trump) and swipe, it brings you to the next story in the carousel. This outrages some that you aren't locked in the gutter of a given site, which is just bizarre and anti-user.

>Apple and Facebook, two of the largest content consumers, have their own competing formats

Solving different problems on THEIR platforms.

AMP is just imposing a non-solution to a non-problem on web users.

So slow page load speed is a non problem and speeding up delivering content is not a solution? Whether you like it or not, if you search on Google, you are using THEIR platform and you are THEIR user. What they have determined is that their users want to consume content faster than what is traditionally available on the web. So you'd rather wait 3 seconds to see your ebay listing than half a second? For the open web, javascript bloat and google is taking over the world reasons. That suits you fine but not the majority of users on Google. Why would Google be implementing a technology that is BAD for their users?

> Why would Google be implementing a technology that is BAD for their users?

Because it is GOOD for Google.

This is about consolidating more time and data on their systems. You never leave a Google server with AMP. UX is secondary benefit used as marketing to force this on sites along with search rankings.

Also Google owns Doubleclick which is the biggest and slowest ad server on the planet.

>So slow page load speed is a non problem

Yes, it's not a problem: it's a symptom.

Bloated pages is the actual problem - for which there is an existing well known solution: reduce the crap on your pages.

No new single company standard, no furthering Google's market capture, and no hiding links, is needed to achieve that.

>Why would Google be implementing a technology that is BAD for their users?

Gee, I wonder, why would ever a company do that. Except, for profit, and market capture, and reducing competition, and all that...

It isn't imposing, and as a user who frequently travels to emerging markets, it is a problem, and as a user, I see this as a solution, I usually prefer sites with the AMP logo because my general impression is that they load far faster.

Maybe you're just not the target user for this, or even for the Internet. And to be honest, pretty much nobody reading HackerNews is the target user for this.

You really should get an AOL subscription. If you ask nicely they just might let you use the 1994 edition which did pretty much all that you describe. And then we got the web.

Exactly the level of discourse that HN is capable of having regarding AMP. Congratulations.

The greatest lie in this discussion is the farcical notion that it's "AMP vs the Full Web", as if those are the only options. It's facile sophistry, but if it's anti-AMP it's all good here.

> but if it's anti-AMP it's all good here.

And if it's pro-AMP then it's good for you.

Really, AMP is a step back and something that solves entirely the wrong problem, and coincidentally continues the trend of Google pulling ever more content into its own eco-system to get to the point where you hopefully will not leave Google any more during the course of a browsing session.

If you feel that's good then I really don't know what arguments would make you see that this is the opposite of where we should be headed, all this vertical integration on the web serves nobody except for the few largest players. If the frog doesn't jump out of the pot while it still can then that's a point against the frog.

And if it's pro-AMP then it's good for you.

As a user, I like AMP. I don't work for Google and have zero investment in whether AMP succeeds or fails. But I'm capable of rationally discussing it without ridiculous FUD or pejorative noise, which so many of you aren't.

If you feel that's good then I really don't know what arguments would make you see

Of course. Allude to the greater knowledge that the ignorant fool just doesn't get. 2 for 2 now.

> But I'm capable of rationally discussing it without ridiculous FUD or pejorative noise, which so many of you aren't.

Well, since you are commenting across many threads in the same vein I don't see what gives you the moral high ground on this.

You as a user like AMP, but what's good for you as a user may very well be detrimental to the web and your personal temporary inconvenience need not have taken a backseat to 'the greater good' if Google had simply increased the penalty for web bloat.

That's what I'm getting at when I say that AMP is solving the wrong problem, or if it is solving the right problem that it is solving it in the wrong way.

This is just Google replacing one kind of bloat with another and we need neither. It is also a fantastic example of how a near monopoly position can be abused to extend your grip on other markets.

Whether you work for Google or not doesn't interest me one bit, what I wonder about is if you do not remember the past where we had all these systems that wouldn't talk to each other and where a few very large players dictated what the rest of us should do.

Google is outright coercing content owners to support AMP 'or else' and that's just not the web that I want to see. Giving Google a free pass here means that other players will take it as a sign that the time is ripe for the next land-grab and then we will all - including you - suffer.

My web properties will never support AMP, they're not bloated to begin with and whatever penalties Google assigns to them are proof positive that this never was about bloat.

> But thinking more holistically, many others simply pushed their content into apps, abandoning the web wholesale

What are you talking about? No they haven't, all major publishers continue to develop and grow their websites with some reaching into other social platforms to distribute further. Nobody has moved to an app, if anything apps have decreased in importance across the mobile universe. And if you're trying to talk about complex webapps then they were never a target for AMP anyway.

If all you really care about is user benefits, then as I described Google already had plenty of options that would be faster and easier without forking the web.

What are you talking about?

Virtually every major publisher has an app that they try to herd users into. As do many if not most social news sites. Was your question satirical, or have you just been asleep for a decade?

Given the nonsensical beginning to your comment, the rest just seems like farce.

Another big anti-AMP person is John Gruber and your comment reminded me of him -- He'll effortlessly go from advocating why iOS apps aren't anti-web, because they're still hand-wavy using web services or something, and then go on a diatribe about AMP. It's quite a delightful bit of mental flexibility.

Having an app available is not "abandoning the web" - which is what you claimed. I've worked with all the major publishers and their biggest focus is always their own websites.

And if you can't even finish a comment that replies to exactly what you wrote then what are you doing talking about the "level of discourse" on HN?

Abandoning meaning not basing their electronic presence on it. No one wants to be just a website, except for maybe Metacritic. Everyone wants to be an app.

what are you even doing talking about the "level of discourse" on HN?

A recurring set of alternative facts rise to the top of every discussion on AMP, and my post that questioned it sits at -5. It seems laughable to now demand that I rise above -- I just find it funny.

> No one wants to be just a website, except for maybe Metacritic. Everyone wants to be an app.

No major publisher wants to be an app. It's reasonable to have one available for the few users who want it but that's it. Apps don't have enough usage, have lower ad rates and take far more work to maintain for very few, if any, advantages.

The apps hype cycle has played out, most users spend 80%+ time on just 5 major apps, which are email, messaging and social platforms which link to content using in-app browsers, so if anything the websites are even more important than before. And any complex service like Yelp or ecommerce was never a use-case for AMP pages anyway so that doesn't apply here.

No major publisher wants to be an app

Every action says that this is a very wrong assumption. In an era of OS-provided ad and tracking blockers, the desire to appify is greater than ever. Now we have Android Instant Apps and the almost certain appearance of the iOS alternative.

and social platforms which link to content using in-app browsers

Facebook once opened links in an external browser. Then they actually wrapped Webkit and started coddling it in a built-in browser. And now they're heavily favoring content that is pushed as Instant Article content. There are only so many times that a user can be attacked from malicious websites before the people who send you there start to get wise.

It's not an assumption, I work with all the major publishers and their executives. Apps are secondary efforts at best and do not approach anywhere near the amount of engagement of their websites.

IA is Facebook's attempt at keeping people on their own platform, similar to AMP's primary focus, and it also does not have as much uptake as it might seem. Other than that, a browser is a browser and opening a publications website is the vast majority of traffic, and consequently where the vast majority of effort is dedicated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com