As always, discussion around AMP is missing anything about users. I've had friends tell me they always click AMP links first because they're so much faster. Why wouldn't users love AMP?
Also as always, discussion is void of alternate solutions.
I find it funny that so many of these threads fall back to, "If publishers would just stop stuffing megabytes of Javascript into their web pages we'd be fine!"
Isn't that what AMP is about? It's an open standard, one Javascript codebase that can be delivered once and cached.
If you think the future of the web --- even just reading articles --- is plain HTML and CSS, then it's no wonder you see AMP as a bad thing and not a good thing for users.
I'd love to hear alternate solutions. How can we deliver article content to users lightning-fast, and still deliver them the things they want like recommendations, sharing, image carousels, etc?
I hear your argument, but my issue with it is that AMP is in fact open. They're accepting pull requests on Github[1] and other providers have already implemented AMP on their own, no Google involved[2].
HN is just bursting with NIH on this issue. I'm not seeing any substantive arguments, no alternatives offered, and no consideration for what users actually want.
This article in particular seems to be droning on about "intentions", "messaging", and "long-term solutions".
To all of HN: if you don't like AMP, shut up and code :)
the issues with amp arent that its not closed source, the issues with amp is that:
1) you either use amp or you lose out massively in google search rank (as in the links that appear at the top of the page, regaurdless of what semantic games you want to identify them with)
2) by using amp, you hand over all your search traffic to google.
No amount of "shut up and code" is going to fix this, because it is a business decision by Google, not a technical decision that they are going to entertain arguements about.
As mentioned multiple times elsewhere in this thread, AMP doesn’t have that much going for it in terms of performance, that’s more of a marketing play.
It’s not that hard to build a page using any of a handful modern frameworks that can outperform it. The trump card is Google’s preloading in searchresults, which AMP makes easy, but wouldn’t be impossible without it. If they stopped enforcing their own CDN/caching, wrapping the pages with their own UI, rewriting links, you could argue it’s a good thing, as a standard that anyone could adopt without commiting to one company. Until then, it’s just a path for vendor lock-in.
Also as always, discussion is void of alternate solutions.
I find it funny that so many of these threads fall back to, "If publishers would just stop stuffing megabytes of Javascript into their web pages we'd be fine!"
Isn't that what AMP is about? It's an open standard, one Javascript codebase that can be delivered once and cached.
AMP also doesn't "break normal links": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13467736
If you think the future of the web --- even just reading articles --- is plain HTML and CSS, then it's no wonder you see AMP as a bad thing and not a good thing for users.
I'd love to hear alternate solutions. How can we deliver article content to users lightning-fast, and still deliver them the things they want like recommendations, sharing, image carousels, etc?