[notatoad]

>For Google, the hijack is the prime feature

what does google get out of it? The experience is better for users who like fast, lightweight pages, but as far as i can tell there's no tangible direct benefit to google when you load an AMP page. The only benefit to google is if their users like the experience and continue to use Google search so they can access AMP-cached pages. If users don't like AMP, google gets no benefit.

or am i missing something?

[avaer]

Google's entire business model is tracking users as they use the internet in order to target ads.

Every AMPed page is contributing work towards improving the effectiveness and appeal of Google's product (selling ads), by adding data to the targeting algorithms.

If every piece of content on the internet is tracked -- through full UX hijack on Google's infrastructure -- that might be a trillion dollar holy grail.

[tyingq]

The ux hijack will progress over time as well. Google knows how to boil users slowly so they never notice the heat.

AMP carousel pages have some subtle capture features that regular AMP pages don't. They will add more, then slowly move them to the regular AMP pages over time.

[notatoad]

you think google doesn't already track the links you click on the SERP? they aren't learning anything new by putting a tracking code on the page that link takes you to.

[stephenr]

People don't share google result links.

People absolutely share amp links.

Also, amp being google.com hosted means no more pesky same-origin privacy protections like limiting cookies.

[fastball]

I don't understand why this matters though?

Google is tracking you. If you don't want to be data-mined, you shouldn't be using Google. If you are using Google, it means you don't mind being tracked. It means you are placing the convenience that Google provides above your concerns about what a faceless corporation can do with your data. If you don't mind being tracked, AMP is not a problem.

I understand how you could dislike Google. I don't understand how you could dislike AMP specifically, but not necessarily google.

[stephenr]

seriously? If you want to use any of a companies services, you have to agree to like any and all of their future changes to said service, no matter how monopoly-like they are or how many privacy protections they hack around?

[fastball]

Nothing has changed. AMP does not make Google's tracking more pervasive?

[kuschku]

I want to prevent my users from being datamined, even if they found my site via Google.

But I also don’t want to end up basically deranked on Google by sites that have nothing to do with the result.

Just look at this example to see how AMP distorts the actual search ranking, by moving pages to #1 that have nothing to do with the topic, but happen to be on AMP: http://i.imgur.com/84FvZmA.png

[notatoad]

There is nothing AMP related in that screenshot. Google doesn't link to AMP on desktop search results.

[fastball]

Uhm. Are we looking at the same image?

Not sure where you think AMP is coming into this? Those results seem relevant to me?

[shimon_e]

Fact is, Google would already have a complete profile on you for advertising purposes even without AMP. They offer more than enough services that track you that they don't really need AMP for tracking purposes.