[MrStonedOne]

As a mobile user, I fucking hate it.

I hate that every fucking google search result on mobile web has its stupid little icon

I hate that there is no way for me to disable it as a user

I hate that it has muddied the waters in what the url bar means

I hate that it has trained users to not question fake url bars.

I hate that cloudflare so thoroughly jumped on its dick

I hate that we invented a way to fake the address in the url bar just for this stupid fucking feature.

I hate that we now have a system where somebody can share a page url with a friend, and that friend can view it on t he same device model using the same browser with the same settings, and will get a different page because one was viewing an amp page but shared it's real url.

I hate that every fucking amp page is lower featured in some way, and almost never works in desktop mode.

And most of all, I hate that it leads to everybody offloading shit onto google's servers.

AMP is not fast because it's served from google's CDN. That's a lie, It has always been a lie, and it will always be a lie. AMP is fast because it's incompatible with 99% of the bullshit client cpu heavy tracking and ad libraries, so they don't get included inside AMP pages.

We could have just had that, without all this stupid bullshit CDN redirection/misdirection bullshit.

And you know what, You want me to get off my hate train? Get google and all of the other search providers using it to solve complaint #2. That's really all it would take to get most of the hate to go away.

[dfabulich]

> AMP is not fast because it's served from google's CDN. That's a lie, It has always been a lie, and it will always be a lie. AMP is fast because it's incompatible with 99% of the bullshit client cpu heavy tracking and ad libraries, so they don't get included inside AMP pages.

AMP is fast because of prefetching. That's not a "lie." You can measure this. When you click an AMP link, the page is already downloaded. Prefetched pages load faster than https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/

But prefetching has a problem: when you visit a website, they can fingerprint you and track you. Prefetching from random websites in search results violates your privacy.

The only way to fix the privacy issues with prefetching is for the search engine (not just Google--Bing, too) to serve the prefetched page from their own CDN.

[TheSoftwareGuy]

But wouldn’t that mean that your search results are going to contain much more data than necessary? Sending you’re results and prefetched versions of all the websites linked therein?

[bduerst]

Link prefetching and rendering isn't unique to AMP - it was even added by W3C to be part of the HTML5 standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_prefetching#Prefetching_i...

Even Internet Explorer will prefetch and render pages.

[dfabulich]

Yes, but if you use that feature, the prefetched sites will fingerprint you and track you.

[bduerst]

Right, but to GP's point their complaint isn't with AMP but with the current W3C internet standards as a whole.

[andrekandre]

now that is pretty dangerous if i may say so... what happens when a search result for something totally innocuous turns up shady webpages that you never click on but get pre-loaded and cached by your browser?

[blub]

"The only way to fix the privacy issues with prefetching is for the search engine (not just Google--Bing, too) to serve the prefetched page from their own CDN."

Except Google is probably the biggest threat to privacy on the planet. You're not "fixing" the privacy issues, you're making things worse.

[TheSoftwareGuy]

It’s not making things any worse. Google already knows what your searched for and they already know what you clicked on, even without AMP. They probably know what you did on that webpage too because they’re probably using google analytics.

I don’t like google google either, especially because of their history on privacy issues, but they’re not getting much additional info from this. Just a stronger foothold on the web

[MrP]

I use duckduckgo on Firefox and I don't see any AMP pages. Give them a go.

[nicolaslem]

I use Google on Firefox and I never saw an AMP page. Each time I see a topic on HN about AMP I feel like I live in a nice parallel universe.

[loktarogar]

DuckDuckGo users are going to be a minority for a long time.

[MrP]

Minority or not, if you use DDG, you will not see an AMP page.

What do you want, to search for stuff or to feel that you're supporting the winning team or something?

[loktarogar]

You're putting intent in my words that isn't there.

It's a fact. There's no quick path to victory until mass tech community adoption rubs off onto regular folks; it hasn't hit that first milestone yet.

It won't win in the short term, which is where AMP adoption is

[memo_ree]

> I hate that there is no way for me to disable it as a user

Yeah, seems like you should be able to. Just curious, where would you want that option to appear, and how would you want to see the search experience change as a result?

[aasasd]

Even regardless of me being pro-AMP or anti-AMP, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

- Google has settings for search and a page for these settings. For example, I have sometime in the past went to that page and set my preferences there. And now they're taken into account when I use Google's search. Like settings are wont to do, y'know.

- We already know how search without AMP works.

[hw]

I think you're approaching it from the wrong POV. First of all, the option needs to be on the site owner/developer side on whether to adopt AMP or not - and not have the decision of not adopting AMP adversely affect search ranking.

As a user, I should just see whatever the site lets me see. If they decide AMP is best for user experience, I would no doubt get it. If they decide to show a responsive mobile friendly site because it works best, then show me that.

[sixstringtheory]

My first guess is to only make it available in the first place to people using search while signed in. Could even sell it as a way to get the “faster” web by signing in. At least that way there’s a choice.

Making it default for everyone and then forcing people to sign in to opt out would be counterproductive from a privacy standpoint.

Could also just provide the original link right next to the AMP link in search results and let users decide.

[ummonk]

Cloudflare seems to have provided a service that fixes a lot of the issues you mentioned, so I'm not sure why you're mad at Cloudflare for making the best of this bad situation.

[memo_ree]

> AMP is fast because it's incompatible with 99% of the bullshit client cpu heavy tracking and ad libraries, so they don't get included inside AMP pages. > We could have just had that, without all this stupid bullshit CDN redirection/misdirection bullshit.

I agree the world could have faster pages without AMP. What would that take though? Would it take web developers across the world pushing back against including megabytes of extra JavaScript for ads/tracking, at all the companies who are currently using AMP?

[hw]

Isn't that up to the developers themselves - whether they want to shoot themselves in the foot by slowing down their site by including lots of JS? Who is Google to determine how the Internet should be run? Shoving AMP down people's throat - because Google can as it owns majority browser and search market share - is akin to large governments in the world pushing their weight around and sticking their noses in other countries' issues.

I cringe everytime I visit a page that's AMP enabled, and usually bounce or just get on a desktop. Sure, promote a 'faster' web, but if it's at the expense of a horrible experience, why?

[izacus]

No, it's akin to large governments swooping in and regulating industries when they start hurting people en masse. Web developers weren't professional enough to make the web fast. AMP isn't the right solution, but the community itself was incapable of policing itself so it was just a question of time before it happened.

Before that, people were massively moving to the apps because the web got too slow and unusable on mobile.

[lwansbrough]

Who elected Google to act on our behalf? Free market takes care of slow sites. Either they’re too slow to use or they’re not.

[joshuamorton]

And they did. Google, a member of the free market, found that slow sites were negatively impacting them. So it took action.

[cameronbrown]

Last time I checked, Google is part of the free market, no? This is exactly how free markets work. And if it turns out AMP is really bad for the web, then the reverse will happen too at some point.

[dictum]

> Web developers weren't professional enough to make the web fast.

Don't shit on (other?) developers to make your point. It's revisionism that only serves the purpose of taking more control from users and developers, which just conveniently gives even more power to the stakeholders who most benefit from the structurally unsound game businesses have been playing.

By the same logic, I could say the Google Chrome team (not related to AMP — just a metaphor) isn't professional enough to make a browser that uses less RAM. In reality, the team deals with a myriad of constraints and other priorities, both technical and commercial, that sometimes clash. Rendering speed and security are its major selling points; if both are met, management is satisfied and Google makes billions.

I'm loath to say this, but performance isn't where a lot of websites make money. It's the ads that people click, way too often by mistake. To feed this system, a bootload of tracking scripts, A/B testing scripts, overeager live support widgets...

Google is coyly selling preferred placement in exchange for performance, which may be the only way to get some businesses to care about performance. Developers are cranking out what the business owners are asking for.

Ask yourself why Google did not take aim at the ownership side, why it did not arrange discussions with major media companies etc. to establish performance as a company-wide goal, instead, put the responsibility on developers.

> Before that, people were massively moving to the apps because the web got too slow and unusable on mobile.

Yeah, the thought process to go from seeing the "use our mobile app instead! It's so much better!" banner, closing it and sending my eyes onto the content that I wanted to read takes at least half a second.

[hw]

> No, it's akin to large governments swooping in and regulating industries when they start hurting people en masse

Okay, I can see that. The idea of Google being the gatekeeper and regulator of the Internet is scary though, especially given it's a for-profit corporation that has its own interests at hand. I think AMP would have been better if it started off as a proposal for it being a standard to HTML, voted on and governed by the W3C, instead of by Google.

> Web developers weren't professional enough to make the web fast

I would argue though, that web developers who are professional enough to adopt AMP, would be professional enough to ensure their site doesn't load bloat.

[jacquesm]

It is actually the opposite, it is a large corporation abusing its position to entrench itself even more. It has nothing to do with regulation. If google wanted to do the right thing all they had to do was penalize the bloat.

[bduerst]

Except we've seen that it's not up to the developers, but some product manager or marketer who is willing to sacrifice the mobile experience for email popups, autoplaying ad videos with sound, loading 50MB of unoptimized content, and other value-sucking tragedy of the commons behavior.

[lwansbrough]

Why is this Google’s problem to solve? And why, if it is somehow Google’s problem to solve (which would mean it’s any search provider’s problem to solve) does it require the site to adopt Google technology? Why not just penalize slow/bloated sites?

[NeedMoreTea]

If Google want to contribute, downrank sites that bloat, or track, or are littered with all the other crap that ruins the experience.

Which would of course include a lot of what Google does. So they "solve the problem" by not solving the problem.

[rhizome]

Seems to be a theme with me this week but I'll suggest it anyway: sites could run their own advertising.

[izacus]

Considering the severe downvotes for your question: Nothing. It didn't make a difference when Google announced penalties for slow loading sites and nothing would make a difference now.

Hence why web developers of HN are so angry at AMP - it bans them from building sites filled with 20MB of JavaScript bloat. If you read through HN history, you'll see hundreds of comments belittling anytone that complained about webpage size and slow loading - usually defending it with a "noone has time to optimize things and build without these huge libraries" argument.

[geekone]

>If you read through HN history, you'll see hundreds of comments belittling anytone that complained about webpage size and slow loading - usually defending it with a "noone has time to optimize things and build without these huge libraries" argument.

Any examples? My limited reading experience here has been the opposite.

[dang]

Nearly all such generalizations about HN are quite wrong; this one seems particularly off.

I think it's because comments we don't like make a much stronger expression than comments we do, so they weigh more heavily in forming our impression. This also explains why people arrive at such contradictory generalizations: it's because they like different things.

[lwansbrough]

So penalize sites for load time / bloat. Simple as.

[cheeze]

You seem really angry about this...

[jacquesm]

They're far from alone in that.

[MrStonedOne]

Then you haven't read my username.

[mcphage]

Those seem some pretty heavy criticisms, why wouldn’t that merit anger?