AMP is the only reasonable alternative I've seen
AMP is the only reasonable alternative I've seen
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.
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."
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.
This needs a reference.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So are you suggesting all news agencies switch to subscription models with paywalls?
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.
AMP isn't just about making pages fast, it's about making pages readable.