Slashdot Mirror
'The Web is Not Google, and Should Not be Just Google': Developers Express Concerns About AMP (ampletter.org)
A group of prominent developers published an open-letter on Tuesday, outlining their deep concerns about Accelerated Mobile Pages, a project by Google that aims to improve user experience of the Web. Google services already dominate the Web, and the scale at which AMP is growing, it could further reinforce Google's dominance of the Web, developers wrote. The letter acknowledges that web pages could be slow at times, but the solutions out there to address them -- AMP, Facebook's Instant Articles, Apple News -- are creating problems of their own, developers say. From the letter: Search engines are in a powerful position to wield influence to solve this problem. However, Google has chosen to create a premium position at the top of their search results (for articles) and a "lightning" icon (for all types of content), which are only accessible to publishers that use a Google-controlled technology, served by Google from their infrastructure, on a Google URL, and placed within a Google controlled user experience. The AMP format is not in itself, a problem, but two aspects of its implementation reinforce the position of Google as a de facto standard platform for content, as Google seeks to drive uptake of AMP with content creators: Content that "opts in" to AMP and the associated hosting within Google's domain is granted preferential search promotion, including (for news articles) a position above all other results. When a user navigates from Google to a piece of content Google has recommended, they are, unwittingly, remaining within Google's ecosystem.
If Google's objective with AMP is indeed to improve user experience on the Web, then we suggest some simple changes that would do that while still allowing the Web to remain dynamic, competitive and consumer-oriented: Instead of granting premium placement in search results only to AMP, provide the same perks to all pages that meet an objective, neutral performance criterion such as Speed Index. Publishers can then use any technical solution of their choice. Do not display third-party content within a Google page unless it is clear to the user that they are looking at a Google product. It is perfectly acceptable for Google to launch a "news reader," but it is not acceptable to display a page that carries only third party branding on what is actually a Google URL, nor to require that third party to use Google's hosting in order to appear in search results. We don't want to stop Google's development of AMP, and these changes do not require that.
If Google's objective with AMP is indeed to improve user experience on the Web, then we suggest some simple changes that would do that while still allowing the Web to remain dynamic, competitive and consumer-oriented: Instead of granting premium placement in search results only to AMP, provide the same perks to all pages that meet an objective, neutral performance criterion such as Speed Index. Publishers can then use any technical solution of their choice. Do not display third-party content within a Google page unless it is clear to the user that they are looking at a Google product. It is perfectly acceptable for Google to launch a "news reader," but it is not acceptable to display a page that carries only third party branding on what is actually a Google URL, nor to require that third party to use Google's hosting in order to appear in search results. We don't want to stop Google's development of AMP, and these changes do not require that.
>> Content that "opts in" to AMP and the associated hosting within Google's domain is granted preferential search promotion
In the web's evolving history, FTP-served content was the first to disappear from search engines, then HTTP-only content (Google dropped priority of these sites years ago) and now its HTTPS. As long as AMP is a patent-free, open standard and (like HTTP and then HTTPS) it's trivial to implement, I have no problem with this.
As such, anything that forces web developers to make fast loading pages makes me happier.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
as Intel has long since proven, it's easy-peasy to cheat benchmarks.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
just the text and a couple light text ads, if you must.
If you run uBlock Origin in medium mode you can get rid of almost anything but that by default
https://github.com/gorhill/uBl...
Google's solution of them hosting the content with means they can run their ads on it, not the ones that the original website wanted.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
new boss.
Same as the old boss.
Publishers had years to get their shit together and make the mobile experience better. They universally failed, opting for cluttered crap, shit UIs, and horribly intrusive ads. AMP changed that and forced Facebook to follow suit with the lightning articles, and the mobile news reading experience is *infinitely* better now. This is just those same disgruntled publishers trying to wring back control, but guess what? Behave like kids and Google will treat you like one. They don't deserve that kind of freedom.
No, thanks. As a user, I would trust Google far more than the shitty media conglomerates and their shitty websites. The only thing that matters is the article content. I don't want your fluffy parallaxed bullshit fancy animated infovideograms, just the text and a couple light text ads, if you must.
That, son, is your problem.
You actually seem to trust Google.
Mobile news reading is horrible with AMP pages as it breaks things like the Mobile Safari reader functionality. Reading pages with Reader is way better than with shitty AMP and having to deal with website designers that use shitty, unreadable fonts and font sizes.
I have no problem with this.
I have a problem with this. I have a problem with you, because you are part of the problem.
Once you trust google with your email, there is nothing much else that matters.
I don't know about the rest of you but I recognize precisely zero of those names.
it's for optimizing the web to be consumed on their OS. (maybe not every mobile device, just the vast majority of them)
AMP = We host [some] of your content + a link back
AFAIK Google only promotes AMP for mobile devices so Android + Firefox is the only combination where ublock origin is relevant. Personally I do use Firefox on Android as my mobile browser but almost no one else does, nor is the performance optimal unfortunately.
Google's solution of them hosting the content with means they can run their ads on it, not the ones that the original website wanted.
Google restricts the types and styles of ads (part of the whole purpose is an optimized experience) but doesn't limit it to their own service AFAIK
Firefox + uBlock origin works pretty well for me on Android. It's faster than Chrome.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
How about Google creates a special browser that solves this alleged problem for those who want it, and leaves the rest of us out of it? What? Because nobody would use it and Google they really care about is monopolizing ad impressions?
All the browsers I use have a âoereader viewâ feature. Works great.
AMP changed that and forced Facebook to follow suit with the lightning articles, and the mobile news reading experience is *infinitely* better now.
Bullshit on all accounts. Facebook's Instant Articles predated Google's AMP by several months, and Google is the one who was following.
Mobile news is markedly worse with AMP; I've read several accounts where publishers lament that it's slower than their native version.
My first sign that AMP is horribly broken is that every single AMP page I've ever visited all point to "google.com", and the URL bar shows "google.com" regardless of the site I'm actually visiting. Phishers can (and have) conceal pretty much anything behind AMP, and few users would have a clue because they see the lock with "google.com" at the top of their browser.
The next problem with AMP is that you can't turn it off: Google feeds you AMP pages if you use a mobile browser, and you have to load the AMP page first and then click to additional times to get to the non-AMP page.
The alternative is to use a different search engine, which is what a lot of us are doing.
AMP is a bigger problem than anything it was trying to replace.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Simply building an AMP compatible site isn't enough though. To get the preferential search promotion you need to have Google host it.
You're forgetting the part where it lets google inject their own analytics, and prevent publishers from getting any information out of it...
That way Google gets to monopolize all tracking, analytics, etc. Not even the Publisher gets to know about its readership anymore.
The web is not slow. There actually is no problem.
Individual sites are slow, because they load ridiculous quantities of scripts and third-party content. They deserve to be slow. Three examples:
- Homepage of an eCommerce site, would like to compete with Amazon: 1.1MB of data, 74 requests, 2.1 seconds load time.
- Homepage of a major newspaper 1.3MB of data, 80 requests, 3.2 seconds load time.
- Homepage of a small eCommerce site that I manage: 130kb of data, 14 requests, 350ms load time. Where's the problem?
tl;dr: It's their own damned fault. If they insist on zillions of trackers, annoying content and huge JS frameworks - well, there's a penalty to be paid.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The Watergate baby Democrats lost site of effective antitrust action and the Reagan Democrats still think all government is the problem so we've had decades to unlearn the lessons of the late 19th / early 20th centuries. I personally don't think "Facebook is ripping us apart" as if the electorate is stupid enough to be ripped apart by social media - or elections thrown by 6 figures worth of scary Russian online trolling - then that's natural selection but Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple's move toward entirely walled gardens is a classic antitrust battle. I don't believe search should be uh nationalized as a public utility but regulations to prevent bigfooting all ancillary technologies and to knock down a couple of walls per walled garden will be required for a healthy economic ecosystem. Barring enough natural disasters to expose our rotten infrastructure I don't see the political will to even flush the toilet much less move towards rational antitrust regulation.
Note for anyone who requires flamebait - Trump's an idiot and his administration are naked thieves but Obama was only better by comparison. Much better by comparison but still the same direction.
Didn't RTFA. What's the problem? AFAICT AMP is an open standard suggested by Google. Is this some new petty RSS wars thing? Can someone explain?
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Once you trust google with your email, there is nothing much else that matters.
Google doesn't choose what emails I get to see.
You are going to have to try a little harder to cop out.
>>As long as AMP is a patent-free, open standard
It isn't.
No, thanks. As a user, I would trust Google far more than the shitty media conglomerates and their shitty websites.
Google is a shitty media conglomerate.
You do know that ... right?
Nope, no sig
But then, you would have to be monumentally stupid to do that.
That's one of the reasons you should use http://eyessl.com/ instead of gOOGLE.
Didn't I read a slashdot story a couple of days ago how Google Chrome is usurping the web by insisting on being the "browser of choice"? Google are really pushing it, and I think they might get away with it. https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
Probably because net neutrality refers to the behavior of ISPs, not the people providing content.
Personally, I find this kind of behavior by Google to be only slightly less problematic than when ISPs engage in it. At least, there are other options for web search other than Google.
EU law suit and sanctions coming up!
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Me too. Firefox is the best browser on Android, and the fact that it can run uBlock Origin (which the Android version of Chrome strangely can't, even though its desktop version can) is the main reason for that.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Given that perception is reality, and Google is the dominate web experience, the behavior of Google is indistinguishable and therefore THE web experience.
If it looks, quacks, and walks like a duck, it's a duck.
Firefox Focus works even better.
Cloudflare support AMP too.
And why not there is no single discussion about this? Someone, submit this to slashdot.
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/24351
Google's AMP breaks a central rule - it breaks the back button completely. Also, on Safari on iOS, it prompts you to enable location services every. single. time. Google is not a shining example at mobile web experiences. I absolutely hate AMP and I always avoid results with that lightning bolt.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Tell that to all the AngularJS developers. There is no real need to support non-javascript users anymore. WCAG 2.0 doesn't even think so.
We know. Thanks for explaining the bit.
Google's AMP breaks a central rule - it breaks the back button completely.
Wait, is that's what's causing this thing lately where clicking back from some sites returns you to the google searh results, then a second later you are fowarded back to the page you were already on?
Publishers had years to get their shit together and make the mobile experience better.
Well they've certainly succeeded in making the desktop experience worse.
They universally failed, opting for cluttered crap, shit UIs, and horribly intrusive ads. AMP changed that and forced Facebook to follow suit with the lightning articles, and the mobile news reading experience is *infinitely* better now. This is just those same disgruntled publishers trying to wring back control, but guess what? Behave like kids and Google will treat you like one.
Guess what? Google AMP pages look like your average intentionally unorganized bootstrap infused infinite jackpot scrolling site with massive fonts and no information content. How is ANY of this shit useful?
They don't deserve that kind of freedom.
What the fuck is your problem? Do you not understand power always corrupts? Are you so dense you can't be bothered with even a rudimentary grasp of human history? Do you believe "Google" is different or somehow exempt from human nature? Perhaps you should go ask the shareholders what they want.
Cheering as Google leverages its search monopoly to further entrench itself makes you a tool of epic proportions.
This is just those same disgruntled publishers trying to wring back control, but guess what? Behave like kids and Google will treat you like one. They don't deserve that kind of freedom.
Since you seem to be such a fucking genius perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining what happens when Google behaves "like kids"? Who elected Google emperor of the Internet?
No, thanks. As a user, I would trust Google far more than the shitty media conglomerates and their shitty websites. The only thing that matters is the article content. I don't want your fluffy parallaxed bullshit fancy animated infovideograms, just the text and a couple light text ads, if you must.
As a luser you get to keep your head in the sand and not give a shit about anything so long as YOU get what YOU want.
At least a full 25% of the AMP articles I end up on have content duplicated within the text of the article.
It's so annoying.
Please make it go away. Feed it whatever it wants and open the gate.
Actually, Google is also an ISP too, though a relatively small player in that market.
My theory is that Google realizes that while not having net neutrality will likely hurt them, as a large incumbent player it will hurt them a lot less than it could a smaller upstart rival. I'm guessing some of the other large tech companies may have come to the same conclusion.
Well, until some deal is signed that makes Google the exclusive search provider for your ISP, or something like that.
Let us invent another new binary format, that is self contained (pictures, media, etc) with a rich API.
Each page would be a sigle file that coulb be cached by the browser. Nobody would be able to twick its content once deployed.
Of course we would need to have a specific editor to edit and compile it.
MMmmm and as it will be very fast, let us call it Flash.
Oh and by the way, as I do not expect a native implementation I would suggest to add it as a plugin first.
That's what I use and it hasn't failed me yet.
That ship sailed many, many years ago. Between Chrome dominating the browser market, Google Mail taking up the mantle previously held by Hotmail, most non-Chrome browsers integrating Google searches into their URL bars and Google.com being the homepage for most regular users, Google effectively IS the web for most people.
"Have Google host it" would seem to imply that this is a decision separate from building an AMP-compatible site.
In fact, AMP is designed such that it can easily be copied onto another domain without any additional effort on the part of the author, so building an AMP site automatically allows copies of it to be hosted on other sites, of which Google is the main example.
It's also possible for other sites -- slashdot, for example, if they wanted to -- to run a similar AMP proxy and get the same user-experience benefits as Google gets from hosting AMP pages: ability to do safe prefetching of content so that the page can be ready quickly when requested. AMP is designed to work for any site that serves as an aggregator of content, but in the process it changes the relationship between the aggregator and the content creator such that the latter gets less control than they had before.
No, that sounds like a different issue.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You said you only wanted "just the text and a couple light text ads, if you must."
My point is that you don't need Google to do adblock for you - you can do it yourself with uBlock Origin. That will convert any web page to "just the text and a couple light text ads".
You shouldn't rely on an ad company, and Google basically is an ad company, to do your adblocking. And AMP is cancerous because it means Google end up serving all the web pages and deciding what ads run. Basically they end up owning the Internet and the content providers are reduced to mere tenant farmers on a Google server.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Isn't it single tab?
You can have multiple tabs in Firefox Focus, but you have to force it:
Long Tap on a link, <open in new tab>; the bottom Trash Icon becomes #ofTabs.
The Trash Icon should be [+] New Tab, with Long Press as Trash. Or user configurable. It's stupid, but forgiveable.
Other than that, FF Focus is overly eager to wipe your browsing history, which for some may be a negative.
Here is a link to a part-time job i came across, Feel free to apply if interested in making an extra income. https://promotionaldrivecom.wo...
Make them a public utility. Regulate them and open source their algorithm.