Hacker News Reader

You don't need AMP, you just need PM's with the ability to grasp the tradeoff between more ads and less users as a result of that.

Obviously it's not an easy thing to decide, but they should be trying to measure that because I can't handle this crap either.

TV is dying because it's jammed full of annoying commercials. And it's getting worse as they are dying.

No, TV is dying not because of commercials, but because other formats of access to the content are easily accessible. There's simply no point in checking if there's anything interesting on TV now, when you can just pick a movie from a streaming service or read news on the website. After all, free online services also show a lot of ads, but this doesn't prevent us, say, from watching a music video on YouTube (one of those things that made MTV irrelevant).

There are many ways of watching TV; a lot of people I know want to have something, not necessarily a particular thing, running "in the background", as they do their chores. TV would be absolutely fine for this use if not for the ads.

Also, free on-line services "show" a lot of ads, but everyone I know deals with it using ad blockers.

Indeed, that's why TV still exists as a niche product, one among others. I'll tell you more: some people are actually watching ads or not annoyed with them enough to do something. I haven't even seen people who would bother to find an ad blocker for YouTube - they just wait those 5 secs and click "Skip" (or actually watch the ad, if it's good enough).

You do need AMP though because you don't get a little lightning bolt and special placement in results if your site is just fast but non-AMP. That is probably one of the scummier things Google does at the moment. I'm surprised they haven't been sued over it yet.

The problem is that they did see it clearly in the short term, and more ads and tracking always provided considerably more revenue. If Outbrain offers you $1M to be put on your site but it slows page load by 500ms on average, you put Outbrain on your site because there's no easy way to quantify how bad 500ms is to a userbase of 100M.

It sucks, and is part of the reason I changed industries.

"e there's no easy way to quantify how bad 500ms is to a userbase of 100M"

No easy way, but it's not that-that hard, and ultimately they have to grasp there is some kind of tradeoff or it would all be ads.

I wonder if there's a business model there.

How certain are you that this analysis would come out in opposition to pretty much whatever advertisers want?

    AMP is the only reasonable alternative I've seen

How about making the site fast and usable in the first place?

Here is why: AMP is much cheaper and simpler to set up, it is way more optimized for mobile usage than trimming down your website, it brings better placement in search results and it is backed by the leading search engine itself, thus ensuring your team is not wasting resources trying to guess how Google works and how to exploit it.

> it brings better placement in search results

This is the only reason anyone bothers with AMP.

And the reason Google does that--and the only reason Google pushes AMP at all--is so that they can become an intermediary between the publisher and their customers. If you're concerned about walled gardens, and you think AMP is the solution, I'd suggest you're not thinking clearly about what AMP actually is.

> it brings better placement in search results

Recent data suggests otherwise: http://blog.chartbeat.com/2018/08/23/research-study-1-3-publ...

What AMP does is allow product ppl to use Google's authority to cut out all the script crap that Sales lobbies for, even if they have to lie a bit.

I.e., "If we don't do AMP, we'll make Google mad and sink in organic rankings" is a much stronger argument than "We ought to remove all these modals and trackers and stuff because no sane user wants this crap thrown at them."

You can't get into the top stories carousel on mobile SERPs unless you provide an AMP page and let Google cache it.

Of course, not everyone who provides an AMP page and lets Google cache it gets into that carousel, so not everyone gets the benefits. But the point is, you can't even give yourself the opportunity for that traffic bump unless you play the game exactly as Google demands.

Not simpler to set up. Quite the opposite. AMP adds complexity. It's not a new technology. It's just a set of rules what type of html/css/js your page can/must use.

It shouldn't take more work to make a simple, mobile optimized web site--it should take less work. These web sites have their developers spending effort adding all these horrible things at first, then complain that they have to turn around and spend more effort to "optimize" and be mobile friendly. Just don't add all that junk in the first place!

> Here is why: AMP is much cheaper and simpler to set up, ...

This needs a reference.

w3c is an easier standard than amp

That cannot possibly be true, as AMP is literally a subset of HTML.

We just had a thread the other day about how AMP is an anachronistic, proprietary platform that breaks functionality that is otherwise completely fine for nearly all devices.

It's technically correct though. Every AMP page is an HTML page, but not vice versa. Ergo AMP is a (shitty) subset of HTML.

I have no particular stake in the specifics of AMP here, but X being a subset of Y does _not_ mean that X is necessarily no more complex than Y. Adding restrictions on something necessarily gives a subset of the original thing, but abiding by those restrictions may be complex.

The example that comes to mind is that every formal language on {a, b} is a subset of the regular language given by /[ab]⁎/. It's incredibly easy to recognize the latter language, but there are literally undecidable languages that are a subset of it.

In that case it is no more complex. AMP is more structured than HTML, has fewer valid tags and attributes, and has an official implementation documentation that expresses how to design the perfect AMP UI in a much more concise and simple way than the HTML docs.

That's what happened originally. Then bigger and bigger ad deals came in, then you needed more tracking to sell better deals.

The current revenue model is completely at odds with performance. If you're an established media company you can't just bail on principle and give up millions in revenue, unfortunately.

that would be awesome. but how do you expect it to happen?

AMP is actually making news easier to read in a real practical way right now. sitting back and suggesting we throw it away in exchange for idealistic nonsense that has been proven not to work by the last 20 years is not making anything better.

I'd love for AMP to be replaced by something better. but "just make nice websites" is not better. it's the status quo, and it sucks.

Break your dependence on Javascript and third-party ad networks.

If the ONLY way you can make money is to sell your user's attention span, you're doing it wrong.

Furthermore, people are willing to PAY for quality, but you also have to be willing to kick the 800 pound gorilla in the nuts.

Google is actually one of the leading reasons why, from my understanding, normal news outlet's paywalls can't actually work. If you have to leave the barn door open because otherwise no one will find you... Yeah, you're in a bad spot.

It's one of the reasons I'm increasingly moving in the direction of thinking that the ad subsidized web has pushed us into a situation where 90 percent of sites are mere aggregators\repeaters really only intended to grab ad revenue. Way back in the days of yore, it was more about getting your content out than doing a bunch of traffic with the rest of the world to facilitate botnet and monetizable surveillance.

Use the tool for what it was designed for, (information dissemination) instead of stateful information gathering, and it's amazing how much you can get done with so little.

Web 2.0 wasn't for Users. It was a breakthrough on the road to "monetizing" the Web for service providers. Further efforts to push implementation specific optimizations is just a Goliath throwing it's weight around, and trying to push the infrastructure toward a business favorable direction. Which is anti-competitive. Which is not okay.

I've never encountered an AMP site so far as I know, but the real practical way I make news easier to read is to put everything in reader mode. Simple, straightforward, lightweight, ad-free, does not depend on cooperation from the server.

> ad free

So are you suggesting all news agencies switch to subscription models with paywalls?

Yes please.

Or find another way of making money (that doesn't involve the electronic equivalent of spitting at peoples' faces), and treat the free part as marketing expense.

I suggest nothing; their profit models are not my problem. If they would rather not make their content available on the open web, that's their right. If they are willing to publish their hypertext, however, I feel no obligation to follow all of the image links they offer; I'll look at the images I care about and ignore the ones I don't, because it's my computer and my attention and my time, and I'll spend it how I choose.

It's (more or less) possible to objectively measure web page performance, though. If Google started measuring how long it takes for news sites to load, and removing any sites that took longer than a certain amount from the top stories section (and added a warning in the search console that your page was being hidden), they could force publishers to change their websites without creating a new standard.

it's easy enough to measure web page load speed. It's a lot harder to measure usability.

AMP isn't just about making pages fast, it's about making pages readable.

Yep. The phrase I often heard from our ad sales dept. was white space represented "leaving money on the table." Hence all of the garbage widgets, endless lead gen link lists, and difficulty finding real content.

The problem with the "AMP being the only reasonable alternative" argument is that web sites are bloated exactly because of the ads and trackers. Google wants to be seen as a white knight for something they themselves create in the first place.

AMP is a dead end, and you could as well give up altogether. For any self-respecting publisher, demonstrating such (economical, technical, and political) incompetence ruins any confidence in a minimum level of digital media competence, so what hope is there for a reader to find journalistic content worth reading?

> Apple and Facebook want walled gardens where they control the content and give the providers whatever revenue they consider "fair", with the huge benefit that the stories would be fast to load and provide a friendly, uniform interface.

Funny, this really looks to me like you just described Google and AMP.

> where they control the content and give the providers whatever revenue they consider "fair"

AMP doesn't give Google any control over content or revenue. It supports hundreds of different ad networks, not just Google's: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/components/amp-ad#...

> and provide a friendly, uniform interface

AMP doesn't enforce a uniform interface. Its restrictions are primarily technical; not stylistic.

> AMP doesn't give Google any control over content or revenue.

It gives Google control over serving the content and how it's ranked when users search for it. That's quite a bit of sway, I'd think.

> AMP doesn't enforce a uniform interface. Its restrictions are primarily technical; not stylistic.

Most AMP pages look very similar to me. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does suggest that there might be some sort of technical hurdle to make content that deviates from the standard layout that Google recommends.

> It gives Google control over serving the content

Fair point. They're planning to fix this with the upcoming Web Package Standard though, so it won't be an issue for much longer.

> and how it's ranked when users search for it

That's just as true for non-AMP content.

> Most AMP pages look very similar to me.

AMP provides a bunch of prebuilt components developers can use to construct their pages, so I suspect what you're noticing here is developers just taking the path of least resistance. (Kinda like how sites built with Bootstrap tend to look similar.) With a little effort, AMP pages _can_ differentiate themselves. For example, these are all AMP pages:

* https://tasty.co/

* https://magebit.com/

* https://www.myntra.com/amp/lipstick