Slashdot Mirror


Google is Giving up Some Control of the AMP Format (theverge.com)

Accelerated Mobile Pages, or AMP, has been a controversial project since its debut. Critics say AMP is a Google-specific project and it is creating a walled-garden, which would only serve Google's best interests. On its part, Google has insisted that AMP's mission is to benefit the open web, and that many who contribute to AMP are non-Googlers. On Tuesday, Google announced that it would be giving up some control of how the code behind AMP is managed. A report adds: It plans to move the AMP Project to a "new governance model," which is to say that decisions about the code will be made by a committee that includes non-Googlers. Until now, final decisions about AMP's code have been made by Malte Ubl, the tech lead for the AMP Project at Google. A model with a single person in charge is not actually all that rare in open source. That person is often cheekily referred to as the BDFL, or "benevolent dictator for life." Ubl's been that person for AMP, but, he writes, "we've found that it doesn't scale to the size of the AMP Project today. Instead, we want to move to a model that explicitly gives a voice to all constituents of the community, including those who cannot contribute code themselves, such as end-users."

[...] Google has already signed up non-Google people for the Advisory Committee, which will include representatives from The Washington Post, AliExpress, eBay, Cloudflare, and Automattic (which makes WordPress). Ubl says that it will also include "advocates for an open web," including "Leonie Watson of The Paciello Group, Nicole Sullivan of Google / Chrome, and Terence Eden." Of course, as anybody who's taken part in a committee knows, it's neither a fun solution nor a guarantee that a single company or person won't dominate it. But it's a step in the right direction, and Google is encouraging people to comment on the plan at the AMP Contributor Summit on September 25th.

61 comments

  1. Quick question by fishscene · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are AMP hosted by google? If so, it's holding the website hostage to google spyware, therefore, really nothing has changed.

    1. Re:Quick question by fishscene · · Score: 1

      Correction: Nothing has changed for me at least. If you're page is hosted on AMP, I can't be bothered to give you the time of day or my money.

    2. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you aren't willing to give up the time of day or your money, then you cannot have AMP and the rest of the world will move on without you.

    3. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See, I prefer amp because the pages load less garbage javascript marketing crapware that all the sites seem to use. Sure, I've got adblock, but it's still latency in all the processing/blocking vs having the smaller pages delivered.

      Granted, google is still tracking it, but until websites don't care about "monetizing users" it's going to be done somewhere. Even if anonymously, by your IP/browser feature correlations. So it's the lesser of evils IMO.

    4. Re:Quick question by fishscene · · Score: 1

      I'd rather the website itself do this, rather than an untrustworthy company.

    5. Re:Quick question by omnichad · · Score: 2

      You could probably think of it as a caching proxy setup. If your data meets certain requirements, they will handle bandwidth for free. But at the expense of losing your identity and making it very hard to know what web site you are actually on. Theoretically, every search engine could use AMP-formatted sites the same way.

    6. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Google cared the slightest about ad junk, it would rank pages according to speed, at which point 99% of adware would be removed overnight.

      AMP allows Google to track every page load, lets Google decide which standards are allowed or not, and breaks the URL paradigm (no wonder Google wants to remove URL display from browsers).

    7. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yes. amp is entirely served by google, under the guise of their servers and infrastructure are better than everybody elses.

      you're supposed to just ignore the fact that google gets all the juicy metrics on every page view when they do that... which is what the goal of the project really is.

    8. Re:Quick question by markdavis · · Score: 2

      +1

      Including a few "non-Googlers" (what a ridiculous term) on some "advisory" committee is NOT going to fix what is wrong with this whole AMP concept.

    9. Re:Quick question by dissy · · Score: 2

      AMP is hosted by you on your web server. You take your existing pages and run them through the AMP library and it outputs AMP .html pages.

      There are new <amp> tags mirroring the same syntax as normal tags but indicate mobile optimized content.
      So your site has <img src='moo.png'> and the amp page has <amp-img src='moo2.png'>
      indicating an optimized for mobile image file.

      In your real page you add a <link rel='index-amp.html'> thing to point to the amp version of the page.
      Though it sounds like a bad idea to have them side-by-side like my examples, you'd probably want a sub-dir and just prefix the paths with that, or a sub-domain so long as having https enabled on both works right in your setup.

      Once google search next indexes your website and finds the "link rel" tags, the search result will link to the normal page for desktops and the amp page for mobiles.

      Same goes for Bing and Yahoo once they index you, they all do amp now.

      At least Google and Bing will also cache your amp content if you have a tag in the header saying they can. (I don't know if yahoo does caching or not)
      After that the search results point to the caching proxy for whichever search engine you are using, and the cache only checks your server for changes.

      There's some basic details up at https://www.ampproject.org/

    10. Re:Quick question by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      AMP isn't hosted by Google.

      AMP consists of two main parts. There is an AMP Javascript library which is spyware free (you can check for yourself, just download it) and there are AMP caches. Anyone can run an AMP cache. Cloudflare does, I'm sure there are others.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Quick question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      none of that fixes what is ultimately wrong with AMP.

      If i cant host the js files on my own server then there is a problem with the standard. FULL STOP.

      Regardless of who caches the page or where ever it is hosted the fact remains that google has spoiled the AMP project by mandating that everyone call a script that is hosted from their servers. This leads to many issues the top one of them being: what happens if google abandons this project? but wait there is more: What data is google collecting? What are they doing with said data? How are they going to handle newer versions and depreciating parts of the API? How long until some pages dont work in the AMP standard because google has changed the API and no one wants to pay someone to go through a back catalog of webpages to fix them?

    12. Re:Quick question by dissy · · Score: 1

      none of that fixes what is ultimately wrong with AMP.

      If i cant host the js files on my own server then there is a problem with the standard. FULL STOP.

      Regardless of who caches the page or where ever it is hosted the fact remains that google has spoiled the AMP project by mandating that everyone call a script that is hosted from their servers. This leads to many issues the top one of them being: what happens if google abandons this project?

      The question was "where are the pages hosted", which is what I answered with.
      Of course none of that is about the other problems, I'm not sure why you'd think it would be.

      But you are still conflating two separate use cases.

      You don't *have* to link their javascript file at all to USE amp.
      You have to host it for them to CACHE your amp pages.

      If they abandon caching, you wouldn't need or want the js file in the first place.

      You are making a complaint along the lines that your web browser or email client has no offline mode and must be on the Internet to use.
      If you aren't on the Internet, those programs would be useless.

      If you don't want google to cache your pages, don't link in the script that lets them cache your pages.
      The fact your amp pages exist and the fact google offers to cache them are separate.

      Bing also requires you to load a javascript file from them if you want Bing to cache your pages.
      Bing and Google require you to include that to grant them permission to make copies of your amp pages, something they are not allowed to do by default under the law.

      You'll note that DuckDuckGo has no javascript file to link to at all, and no such requirement.
      This is because DuckDuckGo doesn't offer caching at all.

      This is separate from the fact DuckDuckGo will still return AMP links to your hosted AMP files if it finds them on your server. Same with Bing.

      If Google abandons caching, then Google would turn it all off right? Their search results wouldn't link back to the now-non-existent google cache URLs.
      At that point Google search would either return direct links to your AMP pages like all the other search engines do, or actively stop their bots from crawling/indexing AMP pages and go back to returning the desktop site URLs, depending how far they want to stop supporting AMP.

      But even Google abandoning AMP doesn't mean all the other search engines would too. That's their call to make.

  2. Never use a Google Project unles by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are outside contributors big enough to maintain it when google decides to drop it.

    1. Re:Never use a Google Project unles by weilawei · · Score: 1

      They already cried wolf, saying Android would be open source. Well, that pipe dream got shot down pretty much right out of the gate.

      Fuck you Google. Never again. Microsoft spent decades pulling this shit; why would we fall for it from you?

    2. Re:Never use a Google Project unles by tsa · · Score: 1

      Because there now is a new generation who didn't experience the horrible ways of MS is the 90s and 00s.

      --

      -- Cheers!

  3. Trust is lost in seconds by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

    Yet takes years to earn back. Google has lost too much trust of late. While this effort is a step in the right direction, it looks like too little, too late.

    1. Re:Trust is lost in seconds by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

      Who cares about trust.
      They have something better. User lock in

      Its why Windows is on almost all PCs and why there will only ever be two phone OSes at this point.

      --
      The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    2. Re:Trust is lost in seconds by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      ...User lock in

      Yes. My point exactly. I cannot trust google to develop AMP for my benefit, they are developing it for their benefit and exploitation.

  4. I dont like it cuz it doesn't work by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Informative

    My biggest conplaint with AMP is that it doesn't work. For example, I dearch and get a hit on resdit and click on the result. I get an amp page that looks like reddit, but I am not logged-in, and images don't work, and the link to see the users other posts isn't a link, it is just text. Sometimes I get a special AMP header with an icon that takes me to the actual page. Other times I have to hand edit the URL to dind the actual page. Basically, Google search results are broken for some sites. I think they should be concerned about that!

    1. Re:I dont like it cuz it doesn't work by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It's hard to take AMP seriously when the specs demand emoji in the HTML tags. But Reddit probably didn't make the links open in a new page/tab, so Google didn't activate them. Anchor tags are supported otherwise, so this is probably either bad documentation of the standard or lazy testing.

    2. Re:I dont like it cuz it doesn't work by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Basically, Google search results are broken for some sites. I think they should be concerned about that!

      Lately Google has been less and less interested about the quality of their search results. At one time, that was their #1 concern, but it must be that some key people have retired. They keep using their power as a monopoly to push reform in.....the world. To give two examples, AMP can affect how high your site is ranked in results, and https can affect how high your site is ranked.

      Now, you might say that pushing everyone to use https is a "good" thing, and maybe it is, but the change of focus to things besides search quality is a harbinger of ominous portent.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:I dont like it cuz it doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both of these are considered signals of quality. https means that somebody is doing the necessary work the make the site work correctly, and not being able to have the page hacked in-flight is better quality for the user. Amp means the page can load quickly, which is what's really being rated. And all else being equal, a page loading quicker is clearly a better result than one loading slowly.

    4. Re: I dont like it cuz it doesn't work by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's a nice theory, but in practice both of them are wrong.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Re:R A Y M O R R I S = L Y I N G N A Z I F A G G O by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you deny genocide?

  6. Fuck AMP & Fuck Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Creating your own little standard on the side and leveraging your market saturation to promote it.
    is this for real? Could it be any more transparent?

    You want to control peoples computers, and what programs run, and where they connect to - because you want to control people's ideas. Because you want to control people, and this is just a few more baby-steps to making sure GOOOBLE is #1 in the chain of influence.

    Now tell us how AMP is for the benefit of humanity and how it "makes synergy more lubricious and accelerates intershekel transactions to your margin"

    Fuck Google and all the faggots who work there.

    1. Re:Fuck AMP & Fuck Google by weilawei · · Score: 1

      I agree. Fuck you Google; you did this with Android, and we know better now.

  7. Google HTML? by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

    Is this just a Google approved version of HTML?
    It doesn't seem to have anything extra over it.

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
    1. Re:Google HTML? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's worse than that. From the amp spec:

      AMP HTML documents MUST:

      contain a <script async src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"></script> tag inside their head tag.

      Literally every single amp request must force the client to load and run javascript from a Google controlled domain.

    2. Re:Google HTML? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn! Thanks for the info, other AC. I had been vaguely aware of AMP, but didn't realize just how ... slimy it is.

      --shudder--

      I feel like we're losing the internet step by step, as the public happily turns control of it over to the world's biggest data miners.

    3. Re:Google HTML? by brantondaveperson · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's 80kb of minified javascript. To hell with that.

      And it's worse even than that. Go to an amp page, and look at what that javascript contains.

      this.preconnect.url("https://facebook.com", a);

      Similar stuff for instagram, and twitter, and youtube, and vimeo. And take a look at some of the un-minified code for their advertising component of AMP.

      ads/_config.js

      No. Thank. You.

    4. Re:Google HTML? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It's mostly a Google approved HTML page only using a Google-approved list of JS libraries. This allows Google to cache the HTML page, and serve it themselves. You know, preventing their search results from even needing to hit your server to monetize your work (there is an "ads" JS library).

      Because the JS is so well defined, they can just catalog the HTML/CSS/Images. Why is that better than caching the JS as well?? By knowing all that the JS can do, they don't have to run it to determine what other content they need to cache. They can do the entire AMP page.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:Google HTML? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 80kb of minified javascript. To hell with that.

      And it's worse even than that. Go to an amp page, and look at what that javascript contains.

      this.preconnect.url("https://facebook.com", a);

      Similar stuff for instagram, and twitter, and youtube, and vimeo. And take a look at some of the un-minified code for their advertising component of AMP.

      ads/_config.js

      No. Thank. You.

      http://shayarisms.mobi/dosti-shayari/

    6. Re:Google HTML? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, what happens if you copy that script and serves it yourself? Possibly a modified version?

      You get whatever benefits AMP has, without the google tracking?

  8. Re: FEDEX SUCKS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Package is 10mi from my house. Arrived in town yesterday. Was 50mi from town the day before. Pristine blue skies as usual, early fall temperatures and the package was not delivered due to a fake "weather delay." Almost as bad as USPS.

    Pot smoking retards.

  9. Re: FEDEX SUCKS! by DarkRookie · · Score: 1

    heyheyheyheyhey
    I would've gotten your package there in a straight line without going backwards.
    Now not wandering for a bit sideways is not covered.

    --
    The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
  10. AMP = Rage-Fuel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop linking me to these awful versions of the page you are trying to link me to!

    I am on a desktop for crying out loud!

  11. is it a first step... by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    ...to drop it by google?

  12. Doesnâ(TM)t matter who controls AMP... by Malc · · Score: 1

    ... itâ(TM)s still AMP and itâ(TM)s still shit.

    Google search popping up AMP pages convinced me to ditch Google search and switch to DuckDuckGo.

    Recently Iâ(TM)ve noticed website links in the Google maps app using a pop-up window with AMP content (and thus broken web browser functionality). AMP annoys me more than the shitness of Apple maps annoys me. It looks like Google is trying to convince me to ditch their maps product now and use Apple maps. What a result Google, well done!

    1. Re:Doesnâ(TM)t matter who controls AMP... by dissy · · Score: 1

      Google search popping up AMP pages convinced me to ditch Google search and switch to DuckDuckGo.

      You should probably be aware then that DuckDuckGo redirects you to AMP pages in their search results too.

      It's far easier to see by doing a search and switching to the "news" tab, since every news site seems to host AMP pages.
      Just hover over any link and you'll see like 90% go to AMP versions of the news site.

      Bing and Yahoo both also serve AMP pages in their search results.

      You aren't going to be able to avoid websites AMP versions just by changing search engines, they all do it now.

    2. Re:Doesnâ(TM)t matter who controls AMP... by robot5x · · Score: 1

      How is it possible to avoid AMP sites entirely? Genuine question. I thought by use of ublock etc I was doing a reasonable job of staying out of googles data capture silo, but now I'm not so sure.

      --
      Hej! Nasi tu byli!
    3. Re:Doesnâ(TM)t matter who controls AMP... by dissy · · Score: 1

      How is it possible to avoid AMP sites entirely? Genuine question.

      The same way you avoid any other content you don't want, like PDFs.
      If you hover over a link that leads you to a PDF or AMP page, don't click it.

      Or avoid websites hosting content you don't want.
      It's the only way to really be sure.

      I thought by use of ublock etc I was doing a reasonable job of staying out of googles data capture silo, but now I'm not so sure

      AMP pages can contain anything HTML pages do, so the same tools and methods will work on both.
      ublock will continue to block ads, at least as well as usual, linked to from either type of page.

      But Google tracks not just by ads so you'll want to continue using whatever you use now to block websites from loading googles content on their page.
      It will continue to work on AMP pages just the same as HTML.

      Unless you mean "in general", in which case an ad blocker, java script whitelist addon, and due diligence is the best we really have.

  13. The only reason this is used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only used by sites because it is guessed this might improve google ranking.

  14. Re:R A Y M O R R I S = L Y I N G N A Z I F A G G O by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killing you nazi faggots isn't genocide, it's a good start towards America being great again.

  15. Really? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    Ubl's been that person for AMP, but, he writes, "we've found that it doesn't scale to the size of the AMP Project today."

    Yeah.. tell that to the Linux Kernel Developers Mailing List....

    --
    bickerdyke
  16. Death to AMP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject says it all.

  17. Just a tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Need to shove a coc gently inside and then use that to leverage control of the product. People always fall for my coc.

  18. Not the story I expected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was expecting the story to be the diver's lawsuit against Elon Musk for his pedo tweet.

  19. Sounds like a bad idea by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    That person is often cheekily referred to as the BDFL, or "benevolent dictator for life." Ubl's been that person for AMP, but, he writes, "we've found that it doesn't scale to the size of the AMP Project today. Instead, we want to move to a model that explicitly gives a voice to all constituents of the community, including those who cannot contribute code themselves, such as end-users."

    "Plus, you know, that 'For Life' thing painting a bullseye on my back."

  20. Google antitrust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fine those n1ggers, quickly

  21. Better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of this whole "governance body" thing, how about we just all forget that AMP ever was a thing and move on.

  22. amp on its way out? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh good, maybe that means that amp is on its way out.

  23. The "Open Web" is better off without AMP. by HumanEmulator · · Score: 1

    What the open web really needs to strong competition among web browsers. If you'd like to support the "open web", the best thing you can do is stop using Chrome.

  24. AMP is the bane of web browsing by guacamole · · Score: 1

    Thanks to AMP pages, when I need to visit a news site, first I need to click on the link, and second I need to click on "more info" above and then click on the full URL. When I need to go back, I need to click on the back button twice. That's five clicks to visit a web page, and then return back to the search engine results. How is this an improvement?

    I refuse to look at plain AMP pages because they don't render the original faithfully (links to forums are missing, etc). AMP also makes a pain to search through the web browser history because they all register in history as "google" instead of the original site name.

    1. Re:AMP is the bane of web browsing by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you're using Google as your search engine.Just, don't do that. Google points at their cache for AMP pages.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  25. Hovering not enough; 8 second delay by tepples · · Score: 1

    If you hover over a link that leads you to a PDF or AMP page, don't click it.

    Hovering shows the URL. The URL does not imply a document's media type (PDF vs. HTML), and it certainly does not imply what subset of HTML is used. Technically, AMP is a subset of HTML5.

    Or avoid websites hosting content you don't want.

    This becomes difficult when the majority of the results on the first page are on an unwanted domain or in an unwanted format.

    Unless you mean "in general", in which case an ad blocker, java script whitelist addon, and due diligence is the best we really have.

    All AMP pages contain boilerplate that adds an anti-FOUC delay, which times out after 8 seconds if AMP's JavaScript engine fails to load. A JavaScript whitelist add-on would just cause this delay to run its maximum course more often.

    1. Re:Hovering not enough; 8 second delay by dissy · · Score: 1

      Hovering shows the URL. The URL does not imply a document's media type (PDF vs. HTML), and it certainly does not imply what subset of HTML is used. Technically, AMP is a subset of HTML5.

      You have that backwards. Imply is all the URL can possibly do, and it most certainly does do that in many cases. What it can't do is guarantee anything.

      This becomes difficult when the majority of the results on the first page are on an unwanted domain or in an unwanted format.

      Well as the topic at hand was DuckDuckGo, let's use the first few results on the first page, as zero of them are to any domain but what the result implies.

      If you'd like to play along at home, go there, search for a common term that the news outlets always have results for, and hit the news tab.
      I'll also remove the http so slashdot doesn't linkify them.
      I used "political news" as the search, and it goes here: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=political+news&t=h_&ia=news&iar=news

      Result #1 "Chicago Tribune" - www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-political-nonprofits-donors-20180918-story,amp.html
      See the part before the extension? Amp.

      #2 "Forbes" - www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2018/09/18/facebook-increases-security-for-political-campaign-staff/amp/
      See the last part of the path? Amp.

      #3 is also forbes so
      #4 "Washington Post" - www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/entertainment/tv/political-commentator-schmidt-joins-showtimes-the-circus/2018/09/13/f98fe0ea-b772-11e8-ae4f-2c1439c96d79_story.html
      See the first part of the path? Amphtml

      #5 is fox news which doesn't seem to be an amp page, first one!
      #6 "The Idaho Statesman" - amp.idahostatesman.com/entertainment/article218331115.html
      See the sub-domain? Amp.

      #7 "Detroit Free Pres" - amp.freep.com/amp/1250872002
      Lots of amp!

      and now the sites start to repeat so that's good enough.
      All of those URLs imply AMP and it took nothing more than to pay attention and actually look. Do you really think those aren't amp pages?
      I haven't clicked any of those links so I am not guaranteeing they are amp any more than the URL does, but they sure as hell imply it.

    2. Re:Hovering not enough; 8 second delay by robot5x · · Score: 1

      Thank you that's very informative. I had no idea it was so obvious from the URL, I just hadn't been looking for it.

      --
      Hej! Nasi tu byli!
  26. APK is giving up his ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK will be giving up his ass at the Pilot Travel Center off of I81 in Syracuse NY nightly. No charge if you bareback him.