[manigandham]

I don't consider either necessary. Clicking a link and then loading the page works just fine for the web.

Creating a custom HTML fork that puts more pressure on limited publisher dev teams to end up with another copy o the site (and now SSR) is a worse approach than placing loading speed into search results ranking and letting sites optimize the site for everyone with a browser.

[lern_too_spel]

> Clicking a link and then loading the page works just fine for the web.

No, it doesn't. If it did, there would be no need for Facebook Instant Articles, Apple News, or their successor, AMP.

> Creating a custom HTML fork that puts more pressure on limited publisher dev teams to end up with another copy o the site

They're already doing this with Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News. Imagine if they had to do separate integrations with Bing, Google, Yahoo! Japan, Baidu, and any future link aggregators. AMP lets them publish one page and support all of them.

[manigandham]

No, none of this is needed. Make speed a factor in search results and sites get faster. The single HTML version will get faster for everyone on every device, not just mobile sites from certain platforms.

Facebook IA and Apple News are also attempts to control ads and data, just like AMP. They're all bad for publishers. IA and AN have both failed in providing anywhere near the benefits and revenue they promised. AMP only survives because it's compatible with existing ads served by Google's ad network and given higher placement in their search results.

It's rather amazing how Google is specifically offering the solution to a problem caused by their own adtech software.

[lern_too_spel]

> No, none of this is needed. Make speed a factor in search results and sites get faster.

You can't get faster than prerendered, which is what Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles offer, which AMP is the open alternative to.

> AMP only survives because it's compatible with existing ads served by Google's ad network and given higher placement in their search results.

If that's the case, why does Bing use it?

> It's rather amazing how Google is specifically offering the solution to a problem caused by their own adtech software.

What's rather amazing is that after having repeatedly heard the problem that AMP solves (instant loading pages), you continue to straw man what it solves and what technologies it competes with.

> Facebook IA and Apple News are also attempts to control ads and data, just like AMP. They're all bad for publishers.

Yet only AMP gets the rabid hate. Why is that? AMP is essentially RSS items with support for above the fold prerendering, interactivity, and monetization. You probably love RSS, even though it is even worse for publishers. Why?

[manigandham]

It doesn't matter if it's prerendered, as long as it's fast enough, and fast HTML sites are fast enough. If AMP was so good then this entire SSR wouldn't even be necessary in the first place, let alone all the complaints about user experience and data.

You also seem to argue that because Facebook Instant Article and Apple News exist, AMP must also compete. I'm saying none of them are needed and creating yet another standard to push onto publishers because others have done it is poor justification. It's more work for no gain. Google already has vast control over UX by using search results, the very same search results it currently uses to pressure sites to implement AMP.

If Google wants to, it can force speed standards that change the majority of websites overnight. It can implement rules and restrictions in its adserver that change the majority of ads overnight. It can optimize Google analytics that change the majority of tracking overnight. It can do all of this if the intentions were pure, but it doesn't, because the only intentions are more control over publishers and data.

Facebook doesn't pressure IA and normal links work just fine. Apple News is new inventory and doesn't take away from Safari or the web. And RSS is completely irrelevant and nothing more than a feed of updates where pubs can share as much or as little as they want.

[lern_too_spel]

> It doesn't matter if it's prerendered, as long as it's fast enough, and fast HTML sites are fast enough.

If that were true, Bing et al would not spend resources maintaining AMP caches. It's clearly not true.

> If AMP was so good then this entire SSR wouldn't even be necessary

This just shows that you don't know what AMP does. It allows prerendering from the link aggregator, and it does this well enough that every competent search engine implements it. The problem this solves is that people share AMP links directly, which can't be prerendered because they aren't loaded until someone puts the link in the location bar. In this case, it is slower than plain HTML, but this isn't the case AMP is meant to solve. By using SSR, they can make it faster than most plain HTML and just slightly slower than hand-optimized HTML with above the fold optimizations.

> You also seem to argue that because Facebook Instant Article and Apple News exist, AMP must also compete. I'm saying none of them are needed and creating yet another standard to push onto publishers because others have done it is poor justification.

The publishers use it, and as we demonstrated above with Bing's A/B testing, the users want it. What more justification do you need?

> If Google wants to, it can force speed standards that change the majority of websites overnight. It can implement rules and restrictions in its adserver that change the majority of ads overnight. It can optimize Google analytics that change the majority of tracking overnight.

Who says they don't? None of those solve the problem that AMP solves, which is instant loading of pages .

> Facebook doesn't pressure IA and normal links work just fine. Apple News is new inventory and doesn't take away from Safari or the web.

It's the same with the search engines and AMP.

> And RSS is completely irrelevant and nothing more than a feed of updates where pubs can share as much or as little as they want.

So what you're saying is that RSS is exactly like AMP, where pubs can share as much or as little as they want.

[manigandham]

Your arguments are circular and repetitive. Publishers do not want AMP. Users dont care about AMP, just fast sites. "Instant" is a marketing gimmick and makes no material difference when sites are fast enough. AMP is not necessary to make sites fast enough.

Google can influence site speed through SERP rankings, speed that is lacking primarily because of its other products, but instead it's forcing AMP pages. This is the fundamental problem that you are not acknowledging. There is no way around AMP if you don't want to lose ranking on an existing search results page.

FB doesn't treat IA ranking differently from links. RSS doesn't treat content differently. Apple News doesn't even support the web and can already accept RSS feeds. They also get plenty of critique that you're ignoring. Have you ever worked with a publisher?

[dmitriid]

> The publishers use it

You mean those same publishers who now say that AMP is bullshit, doesn't deliver on any of the original promises and causes problems? https://digiday.com/media/google-amp-beat-facebook-instant-a...

> as we demonstrated above with Bing's A/B testing, the users want it.

Users want faster webpages. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

[dmitriid]

> which AMP is the open alternative to.

It's not an open alternative. All decisions on what AMP should look like and what it supports are done by Google behind closed doors. See, for example, AMP 4 Email [1]

The only reason AMP exists is because Google needed its own way to control content. That is it.

> If that's the case, why does Bing use it?

Because you're forced to compete against the behemoth on the behemoth's terms.

> What's rather amazing is that after having repeatedly heard the problem that AMP solves (instant loading pages)

AMP's problems are well documented. You chose to ignore all of them and go for "instant loading pages".

> Yet only AMP gets the rabid hate. Why is that?

Because it reaches a wider audience and Google has the gall to call it "open" and "good for the web". It's neither.

> AMP is essentially RSS items

It is not like RSS in any way, shape, or form.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16455593

[lern_too_spel]

> It's not an open alternative. All decisions on what AMP should look like and what it supports are done by Google behind closed doors. See, for example, AMP 4 Email [1]

Your examples predate https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.amp.dev/2018/11/30/amp-pro... and no longer seem to apply.

> The only reason AMP exists is because Google needed its own way to control content.

That's nonsensical. Why then does Bing use it?

> Because you're forced to compete against the behemoth on the behemoth's terms.

Why are they forced to use it? I would really like to see your position stated coherently.

> AMP's problems are well documented.

How do you propose to achieve instant loading web pages, while working around all of iOS's bugs?

> It is not like RSS in any way, shape, or form.

This just demonstrates that you don't understand AMP, don't understand RSS, or don't understand both. AMP allows the link aggregator to cache and directly serve the article contents, exactly like RSS does.

[dmitriid]

> Your examples predate <Advisory Committee>

Advisory Committee has no say in anything that AMP does. Everything is designed and specced inside Google (or Google-dominated work groups) and then vetted by the Technical Steering Committee. Advisory Committee's findings and advise is non-binding: https://github.com/ampproject/meta/pull/37 And all the WG's are assigned projects that have already been accepted into AMP (such as AMP 4 Email).

And yes, my example is important because it was a huge change that no one asked for, but now it's in AMP. As are all the other changes that already hurt the web.

> Why are they forced to use it? I would really like to see your position stated coherently.

Google has near monopoly on search. In order to compete with it you need to provide nearly all of the same features.

> How do you propose to achieve instant loading web pages, while working around all of iOS's bugs?

There are no bugs in iOS that preclude instant pages. And the bugs that AMP introduced are, well, the bugs that AMP introduced. AMP broke the behaviour on purpose and refused to implement any suggested fixes.

> This just demonstrates that you don't understand AMP, don't understand RSS, or don't understand both. AMP allows the link aggregator to cache and directly serve the article contents, exactly like RSS does.

I perfectly understand what AMP and RSS are. You don't understand what either one is. RSS was never about caching or link aggregators.

RSS is a web feed. That has a standard XML format and can be read by anyone: a client app on your phone, a client app on your desktop, a link aggregator that can be built by a half-decent engineer in about two evenings. Additionally, it is trivially discoverable by including a standard meta tag on a page.

Also, RSS always leads to the original URL.

AMP is not a feed. It's a collection of specially constructed HTML pages (which are not valid HTML5, by the way). They are not "instant". They are underperformant by Google's own standards (try running Google's own Lighthouse tools report against one from cold cache).

They are only "instant" when significant effort has been spent setting up an AMP cache so that some or all content is already on the client's browser before the client hits the AMP page.

They are not discoverable. A meta tag linking to an AMP version will only link one URL, that's it. There is no feed.

An AMP cache destroyes the very essence of the web: linking. You will not get the original URL, you will get the cache's URL.

Implementing an AMP cache is a significant endeavour, and only a handful exists (as far as I know, there are no opensource AMP caches).