[bluetidepro]

I understand your point, but I guess I just wish it wasn't an "either or" world, so we both could enjoy the web how we would respectively like. Why won't Google let us have both? Right now, I don't believe there is a way to disable AMP (unless you use like a Firefox mobile extension for that specific use case). That's what bothers me the most, personally. Google shoving it down our throats, and force feeding us AMP is so user hostile. Let the user decide, even if it was hidden under a super obscure setting in something like chrome://flags/, that'd be better. It's a simple win-win for everyone.

[apexalpha]

I agree with you. I would prefer a world where AMP isn't needed and websites don't ad 4MB of bloat to their sites.

But, we don't live in that world I'm afraid. And for many news websites I don't want to even begin downloading the auto-playing video on their page. So AMP is for many the easiest choice.

[fauigerzigerk]

AMP is not needed to promote less bloated websites in search results. Google could easily boost the ranking of lightweight websites without AMP.

AMP is an obvious abuse of a dominant market position and Google will come to regret it.

[tracker1]

I wish they would... boost websites with < 1mb of html+css+js payload (exclude images). Extra points for optimized images for mobile by default, with upsizing for high density or larger displays.

Google could very well have given huge boosts to small/fast websites, and then the sites would have had to figure it out wrt advertising and bloat. It would have been a much better result.

[dcbadacd]

They could, but then we'd see a lot of cheaters even there, AMP is very locked down. I don't like the market position abuse either, but the other parties are far from guilt free.

[fauigerzigerk]

Of course SEO will never end. But if the question is how to improve the open web, then turning the open web into a Google property is not an answer.

[dcbadacd]

Signed exchanges are a thing, I don't see how Google intervenes there more than just providing the AMP standard.

[bluetidepro]

Again, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying, Google should let us choose. If I want to download 4MB of bloat, let me. I don't like them making the choice for me that AMP is "the best" option. What you want, isn't what I want always, and that's my point. It is user hostile/a dark pattern for Google to force AMP on me, with no way to disable it.

[apexalpha]

In which way is Google forcing you to AMP? I've never encountered a website that didn't also have a not-AMP version.

[bluetidepro]

It's forcing me to go through AMP, that's what I'm saying. And in the case of the parent OG article this is all on, that is currently broken. Thus, forcing me to be stuck on AMP, with no way to bypass it. That's why it needs a setting to disable it entirely. I don't want to have to go through a website to get to the one I wanted. I don't need the AMP middleman.

You are completely not understanding my point of having the OPTION to disable it, so users who don't want to deal with AMP at all (myself, and many others) can have that ability.

[privateSFacct]

Can’t you still go to regular pages? I’ve never been forced to go to AMP pages. But I like them - people forget the full screen videos that popped up pre-AMP. Seriously - all this complaining you can’t load your bloatware pages is weird. AMP wouldn’t even be a thing if devs hadn’t trashed their own websites.

[jeltz]

No. You either have to switch to Firefox or use DDG to avoid AMP. I switched to Firefox.

[tyingq]

By not having a config item for their search to return the real url.

And, as in the main story, the AMP page bricking the link to the real url.

[dcbadacd]

They're working on signed exchanges, you'll soon see the "real URL" of the content.

[tyingq]

On Chrome only. While still retaining mandatory Google controlled JavaScript in the page (which is what's broken in this story). Not sure why real url is in airquotes. It's an actual issue.

[JoshMnem]

Signed exchanges are a terrible idea. They take control away from publishers and let large sites (AMP caches) control small sites. Google punishes web publishers with a traffic drop unless they allow Google to serve their websites from Google's servers and include Google's JavaScript. AMP, signed exchanges, and portals can't seriously be considered real standards.

[WD-42]

You can disable AMP by not using Google. DuckDuckGo doesn't have these problems.

[JoshMnem]

You can disable it for now, but there are already some companies building their entire websites in AMP like independent.co.uk.

A better solution than AMP would be to only consider raw page speed, and then use a neutral schema markup for whatever extra features Google wants to display in Google Search.

[fjsolwmv]

What's wrong with AMP websites? AMP is a fast subset of HTML. That's different from using Google's AMP cache.

[SahAssar]

A subset wouldn't require you to load js to use built-in features like forms. A subset would just remove features or elements, which would make the whole load a js lib to make it work superfluous.

AMP is not a subset of HTML. It's a superset of a (badly defined) subset of HTML.

[detaro]

A "subset of HTML" that by specification is required to load Javascript from a central CDN, and by specification will let you wait multiple seconds before it shows anything if that JS doesn't load, even if perfectly usable content is loaded already.

[JoshMnem]

AMP is an unethical scheme by Google to appify and control of the Web. There are many articles about it.

Here are some other pages:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Anews.ycombinator.com+amp&t=...

[oceanstone]

> Right now, I don't believe there is a way to disable AMP

Desktop mode disables AMP on Chrome Android for me. I haven't tested with iOS though.