
Google embraces, extends, and extinguishes - Sir_Cmpwn
https://drewdevault.com/2018/05/03/Google-embraces-extends-extinguishes.html
======
chatmasta
Hey, I was just talking about this in a comment the other day! I totally agree
with the author here. I was surprised not to see any mention of cloud facing
open source products. Kubernetes seems like a prime example. Google lost its
containerization first mover advantage to Docker (remember google was famous
early for its internal use of containers). So they targeted the next level up
the stack of container orchestration. Kubernetes is a great project, but its
clear priority is compatibility with the cloud computing business model. It
didn’t take long for google to offer GKE on top of kubernetes. At least for
now, there is feature parity between open source and hosted versions. But I
don’t expect that to last long. I would be wary of the kubernetes project
introducing features that only work well in google’s cloud.

The main externality of this open source EEE strategy is developer opportunity
cost. When google swept into the chat market, they used their size and first
mover advantage to push an open standard, XMPP. So developers who might have
worked on other projects/standards naturally gravitated toward XMPP and
contributed their time there. If those developers had known the future of
XMPP, they likely would not have worked on it. They could have invested time
in a competing, more open project instead.

This to me is the real danger. It’s bad enough that google gets to benefit
from thousands of free contributors to its “open source” code. It’s even worse
that they are taking those developers away from other projects, so that when
google moves to the third phase of EEE, there are no viable alternatives.

~~~
hellepardo
I have always felt that, in a "typical" open-source project, I could approach
the community, join it, build some rapport, and eventually help with the
decision-making process (assuming I was any good and people in the community
liked me).

But with Google-run (or other company-run) open-source projects, it's a
completely different story. Want to be a TensorFlow maintainer? Great, sure,
you can contribute, but you'll never get to make any decisions about the
direction of the project itself unless you're inside Google.

To me it's a disappointing semi-abuse of the term "open source"... it doesn't
mean what I think it should...

~~~
FLUX-YOU
If you are good enough to contribute to Tensorflow and be able to come up with
new directions, why not just get a job at Google so you can do that?

This isn't unlike any other open source project ran by people who don't want
to consider all input from others. Not all suggestions are worth serious
consideration, after all. Open source doesn't mean I'm beholden to your every
whim just because you've contributed. That's what forks are for.

~~~
hellepardo
> why not just get a job at Google so you can do that?

Don't want to move to California? Can't pass the interview? Salary too low in
the offer? There could be lots of reasons.

I agree with your other points, but what I'm saying is not exactly that. What
I'm saying is that TensorFlow is not a _community-led_ project in the way that
other open-source projects are. It's _Google-led_ , and if you don't like it,
you can go away or fork it (...and if you fork it, it's unlikely you'll get
many users given the Google marketing machine).

(The same complaints have been and are being regularly made against Red Hat,
and also Fedora, given that Fedora is basically "experimental" Red Hat.)

~~~
FLUX-YOU
Convince Google it's better as a community-led project. Maybe they will have
some convincing counter-points about why it's better the way that it is that
we're not considering. They've likely already been through this debate.

Consider if Tensorflow were half as useful as it is today if it was community-
led and it was led by a shitty community.

------
hapnin
In 1998, Brin and Page admitted that the future Google would biased and poor
quality:

“The goals of the advertising business model do not always correspond to
providing quality search to users.”

“We expect that advertising funded search engines will be inherently biased
towards the advertisers and away from the needs of the consumers.”

“Advertising income often provides an incentive to provide poor quality search
results.”

“Since it is very difficult even for experts to evaluate search engines,
search engine bias is particularly insidious. A good example was OpenText,
which was reported to be selling companies the right to be listed at the top
of the search results for particular queries. This type of bias is much more
insidious than advertising, because it is not clear who “deserves” to be
there, and who is willing to pay money to be listed.”

[http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html](http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html)

------
yoz-y
One thing I would add is constantly pushing the web standards forward with
little regard to other players. They are adding features so fast that only the
biggest structures can keep up. Many of these seem to exist just so ChromeOS
can actually be considered a real OS.

Writing a secure and up to date HTML rendering engine from ground up is now
almost impossible (kudos to Mozilla to actually doing that).

~~~
gcp
The problem is that they push "standards" but the implementation of the
standards often does not function as written.

Typically standard bodies avoid this by requiring two independent
implementations, but the market situation really means that the standard is
what Chrome implements, and nothing else.

~~~
romanovcode
They also ignore many things they push.

------
ashleyn
Google's approach to open source does feel very much like virtue signaling
rather than constructive adherence to the ideology. The build system for any
Google project is notoriously terrible. I recently attempted to build Skia;
even after rereading the scant instructions, I could not get it to do anything
better than a compilation error.

~~~
Boulth
I think this stems from their internal monorepo culture, e.g. they care about
building everything in one go, not in isolation. This can also explain the
issues with golang dependencies, it's hard for them to see problems of most
regular developers as they use a unique toolchain (custom SCM, custom build
tools etc.)

~~~
ethbro
Not Invented Here (tm) seems like a large part of the cultural problem with
being better open source contributors.

It's great they open source a lot of their stuff, but just because you're big
enough as a company to rewrite {component of build chain} for yourselves...
doesn't mean you should.

Caveat: I know parts of Google are awesome with contributions and using
standards.

~~~
iaml
Biggest problem I think is googlers can't use code if it's licensed under
AGPL.

edit: GPL -> AGPL

~~~
skj
The license we (I am an engineer at Google) cannot use is the AGPL.

------
Mediterraneo10
> it’s infamous for having an extremely strict spam filter for incoming emails
> from people who run personal or niche mail servers.

I run my own mail server and I have zero problems with reaching Google Mail
users. Google – like other big mail providers – just expects you to set up
DMARC and DKIM authentication for your server, which is not hard to do. Linode
already provides a convenient guide to setting this up for any Ubuntu or
Debian installation.

------
tehabe
There are also a view counterexamples, for example that Google abandoned its
native client in favour of webassembly when the standard took form. The same
with progressive web apps which will replace the "web apps" in Chrome.

I was also sad when Google Talk was shutdown for Hangouts but to be honest,
XMPP was going nowhere. The quality of available clients was very different.
You had awful clients like Apple iChat (which is still awful), complete client
like Psi which stopped at some point, clients which wanted to be everything
like Adium/Pidgin, etc. pp.

Google Reader was indeed sad and really weird, they could have build on top of
their social networks they already had but they wanted something new and
shiny. I still look for a good replacement.

~~~
jacksmith21006
The Google Reader one is so baffling and love to hear the real story at some
point.

~~~
ebikelaw
Boring story. Vic Gundotra, the clueless jackass from Microsoft that Google
made SVP for Social did not think RSS fit into his idiotic vision so he shut
it off.

------
shmerl
_> These days, Microsoft seems to have turned the other leaf, contributing to
a huge amount of open source and supporting open standards, and is becoming a
good citizen of the technology community._

In some cases, but not in others. MS never joined the Vulkan working group,
instead insisting on its DirectX lock-in. MS's Outlook / ActiveSync is still
not an open standard which makes it a major pain to use. exFAT isn't an open
standard despite MS pushing it on SD cards storage. And so on and so forth.

And XMPP story isn't any better either. Google should be blamed of course for
deserting, but so is MS who never joined the effort to begin with.

------
kmfrk
I think Google are just terrible at product, plain and simple.

I just looked at the new YouTube Creator Studio interface, and it's literally
the biggest UI and UX abomination I've seen from a major tech company in
recent memory. It's worse than the iOS 7 redesign.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Depends on the product. We just got YouTube TV and just love it and same with
Google Photos. But then there are other Google products that are poor and been
for years.

They are now a pretty big company with a lot of different teams so not
surprising some good and some bad.

~~~
kmfrk
It’s weird, because Google clearly have great designers and do some great
work, but YouTube (as an uploader) is just the worst.

It’s great that YouTube for PS4 sorta works now, though.

I do wonder why there’s this crazy variance in quality.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Must use difference teams for YouTube versus YouTube TV.

YouTube TV is excellent.

------
quantumwoke
This article reminded me of an old quote from J Allard, a former exec from
Microsoft. Replace Microsoft/Windows with Google, and the result is scarily
accurate.

"In order to build the necessary respect and win the mindshare of the Internet
community, I recommend a recipe not unlike the one we've used with our TCP/IP
efforts: embrace, extend, then innovate. Phase 1 (Embrace): all participants
need to establish a solid understanding of the infostructure and the community
— determine the needs and the trends of the user base. Only then can we
effectively enable Microsoft system products to be great Internet systems.
Phase 2 (Extend): establish relationships with the appropriate organizations
and corporations with goals similar to ours. Offer well-integrated tools and
services compatible with established and popular standards that have been
developed in the Internet community. Phase 3 (Innovate): move into a
leadership role with new Internet standards as appropriate, enable standard
off-the-shelf titles with Internet awareness. Change the rules: Windows become
the next-generation Internet tool of the future."

------
GoToRO
Any company that grows this big will behave the same. The only solution for
consumers is to not create companies this big. Always also buy from
competitors.

~~~
ribchinski
Any company this big needs to have some outside control. They are clearly
monopolizing. I thought the US had a law against monopolies, or does it only
apply to the railroads?

~~~
TulliusCicero
> I thought the US had a law against monopolies,

It's more complicated than that. US law tries to only target "bad monopolies"
that engage in anti-competitive practices or hurt consumers:
[https://www.investopedia.com/insights/history-of-us-
monopoli...](https://www.investopedia.com/insights/history-of-us-monopolies/)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
In reality, monopolies like Google have repeatedly demonstrated anti-
competitive practices and consumer harm. The unspoken reality is: We simply
don't do antitrust anymore.

------
davdc
Google's approach to open source may be about as transparent as North Korea,
but I do appreciate their contributions. VP8 and VP9 never really had any
competition in their category, and their collaboration with the AOM to ship
AV1 appears to have been fruitful.

~~~
willnorris
Could you expand on this a bit? We've tried to be very transparent with how we
approach and think about open source by publishing all of our internal
documentation at
[https://opensource.google.com/docs/](https://opensource.google.com/docs/). Is
there something that's missing from that? Or are you thinking about certain
specific projects being opaque in terms of how their managed?

~~~
forgottenpass
The default google approach to open source is unidirectional source dumps
after all the work is done. On some products you do a bit better, but still
keep your cards incredibly close to the vest, and maintain very tight control.
Even when you're trying not to, you can't break from that mold.

I've got this comment saved on my reddit account because it was so funny:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/53gb56/why_lea...](https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/53gb56/why_learning_angular_2_was_excruciating/d7szso5/)

~~~
willnorris
> The default google approach to open source is unidirectional source dumps
> after all the work is done.

I can definitely say that is not our default approach to open source; in fact
it's a very small minority of projects that actually operate in that fashion.
However, I can understand that it could feel that way to some people.

We've long said and continue to believe that there is no one way to do open
source. That's true of nearly every aspect of a project including licensing,
governance, community management, etc. Project are released for different
reasons, with different motivations and goals, and so the way they are managed
often differs.

One area I know we could do better is to set better expectations for projects
around many of these topics. How is the project managed, how are decisions
made, how committed to this are we (ie. are we using it in production), etc?
If those aspects of a given project were clearer, would that address some of
your concern (with the understanding that some projects may be be held closer
to the vest than others) ? Or are you objecting to the tighter control in
general?

~~~
forgottenpass
I jumped into this thread just to answer your question, I don't have a
personal objection to how Google approaches open source. You can be as private
as you want or have whatever project governance you want.

I posted because I find it alternatingly funny and frustrating that Googlers
don't understand (or can't publicly admit) what Google is to the outside. I'm
willing to believe that your comment is your own words. The problem is that
you might as well have copy/pasted it from a social media playbook.

It's Google's prerogative to run the business however they want. But you
pretend not to be a black hole. All companies are black holes, and that's
fine. It's the dishonesty in external posturing that gets to me. Sometimes
it's acting like a given opensource development process is more externally
accessible or transparent than it is. Other times it's pretending like the
youtube appeals process isn't a fake website to con the dumb people. Everyone
knows the real appeals process is to work your professional contacts until you
find someone who can reach out to a real human in google to check if they
should over-ride the automated system (and/or the hourly drones that DGAF
about doing their jobs well). -- That was weird tangent, but it's the thing
least tied to software development process I could think of.

I know you can't admit it outloud on Hacker News, but I hope you would have
had a different response if we had this conversation at a bar rather than in
front of everyone like this. As long as you can admit that to yourself,
privately, you're alright with me.

------
SquareWheel
To my memory Gmail has always had a very strict spam filter. At what point did
it turn into "extinguish"?

~~~
lallysingh
The complaint is that they're extending the email standard by sending single-
URL bodies instead of the messages inline. I can see the point, but sending
URLs is still fine in my book, and this is a useful feature that's trying to
get parity with Outlook.

~~~
pjmlp
Including not being able to read them when using a 3rd party client?

~~~
SquareWheel
If it's just a URL, why wouldn't that work in other email clients?

(Though personally I'm not a fan of the idea itself)

~~~
pjmlp
Outlook has a way to send such messages that you only see a Webmail.dat
attachment when using other clients, hence why I was jokingly asking if that
was also part of achieving parity.

~~~
SquareWheel
Ah, missed that sorry. Thankfully haven't received such a file yet.

------
crispyporkbites
This does feel like a familiar turning point for google- how long until they
are the slow moving incumbent in the market and ripe for disruption?

If you’re thinking about taking on google in a specific product area, now is
probably a good time to start.

~~~
scarface74
An ad blocker + reader view could very well take care of most slow loading web
pages. What are the chances that Google will build an infrastructure that
allows third party ad blockers to work with Chrome on Android? Yes I know that
you can download other browsers,but embedded web views still use Chrome.

~~~
romanovcode
Google is experimenting with putting ad content seamless together with regular
search results so an ad-blocker will not help you at all.

~~~
scarface74
It's not about as blocking on Google. It's about the ads on third party sites
(including Google ads) that make the web so obnoxious.

------
gmenegatti
This is true, not just for technical side, but also on business side.

Google just did it again on the Ads business:

[https://adexchanger.com/online-advertising/googles-gdpr-
cons...](https://adexchanger.com/online-advertising/googles-gdpr-consent-tool-
will-limit-publishers-to-12-ad-tech-vendors/)

------
minikites
Does Gmail still cause trouble with vanilla IMAP clients? I remember something
about how "tags" in Gmail showed up as folders in the client, but since emails
could have multiple tags it caused lots of problems.

(I use Fastmail, an email service that's much better and standards compliant.)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
It does. Deleting things in an IMAP client usually means "removing the tag
corresponding with that folder" in Gmail. There's a hilarious tendency for
things you delete in IMAP to just be in "All Mail" with no labels in Gmail,
for instance. I used to use Gmail on a Windows phone for a while, and the
issues were painful.

Note that FastMail is developing JMAP, a replacement standard for IMAP. And
even though FastMail itself doesn't support labels, they've made sure their
new standard can support Gmail's currently proprietary way of handling mail
correctly. Hopefully JMAP will take off and we'll see better email clients in
the future.

~~~
shmerl
You need to configure your client to do expunge in addition to delete.

------
jjhbw
I wonder if their attempt to force HTTPS everywhere (by shaming HTTP-only
sites as insecure in Chrome) fits into this strategy.

It would put net neutrality violators like US ISPs out of the mass surveilla-
..eeeh advertising business, so I guess that is a good thing.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Think driven to keep people safer and the same with Project Zero. A safer
digital world and people will use more and Google then makes more money.

My gripe with the broader industry is that Google is finding a lot more of the
big vulnerabilities than their competitors.

Should be a lot more balanced. I can not even think of one major one found by
Apple. Yet Google has found so many of the really big ones. Today see an
article they found additional.

~~~
crummy
What exactly should Google do differently here, when they find bugs in other
companies products?

~~~
jacksmith21006
The point is spending the money to find them.

I personally believe MS should have done this years before Google.

------
mankash666
On open source and standards Google has been a leader. Contributions:

1\. VP8, VP9 and 90% of av1

2\. WebRTC

3\. Nacl/Pnacl that was killed by W3C for no technical reason, in favor of an
inferior wasm

4\. SpyDy inspiring http2

5\. V8 js runtime

6\. Angular js

7\. ProtoBuf and grpc

8\. Android

9\. Huge contributions to the looking kernel, and many many open source
libraries, like boring ssl

10\. Brotli compression and other related tech

11\. Go language

12\. Tensorflow

13\. ...

It's a bit sensationalist to label Google an "extinguisher". If anything,
they're a huge enabler in software.

Now, all the above doesn't make itself. A company pays competent software
engineers to work on this full time. I'm in complete support of Google's
attempts to monetise Gmail, one of their largest services. After all someone
needs to pay for those engineers, and most of all, Google is a for profit
enterprise

You're free to transition to any of the other million standards compliant
providers, there's no data lock-in. You can download your email via imap,
another standard that was pushed by Google when the competition was only
offering web-email

~~~
craftyguy
> 8\. Android

Have you tried to build pure AOSP lately? Hint: you pretty much can't, it's
broken. Google plays super dirty with manufacturers that want to use Android.

------
nova22033
>and contributing to Chromium as a non-Googler is notoriously difficult.

so fork?

~~~
takluyver
Forking a big, fast moving, security critical piece of software like a browser
is totally impractical unless you have a sizable company behind you to
maintain it.

~~~
icebraining
So what? Lots of things are impractical for individuals.

~~~
guiolo
It's not just individuals. If people can't contribute to the project it is
hard to build or maintain knowledge about that technology so another party can
use it at all. Sharing code that few people de facto can use shouldn't give
you much credit, or at least not as much as the alternative. Unless it is, as
someone suggested, about signaling.

------
gcp
_Microsoft...is becoming a good citizen of the technology community_

By displaying deceptive ads about competitors in their flagship product?

Get out.

~~~
neilparikh
To be fair, Google did the same thing. When chrome was new, they had banners
on google.com suggesting you “upgrade” to Chrome for a better experience. And
the banners weren’t only shown on outdated/old browsers (say, IE); they were
shown on Firefox too.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
They also show for Edge, of course. And don't go away no matter how many times
you dismiss them. Firefox is currently my main browser, and there are only two
things left on the Internet which truly annoy me.

\- "Upgrade to Chrome?"

\- "Subscribe to YouTube TV?"

No matter how many times you say "No", they'll both come back. And you know
that's not bad code, because YouTube literally said it was part of business
plan to annoy people until they pay up.

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/21/17147800/youtube-
streamin...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/21/17147800/youtube-streaming-
service-lyor-cohen-ads-music-industry-spotify-free)

------
shouldbew0rking
Write more AGPL licensed code ;)

------
jacksmith21006
This is a very goofy article. Google has open source so many things that it is
a bit crazy they give away. But who else open sources their OSs? Both Android
and ChromeOS.

But the craziest one is giving away Borg. Probably the most incredible
technology Google has created and just opens sources it.

For me personally the biggest contribution from Google is

[https://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html](https://research.google.com/pubs/papers.html)

Kind of the opposite of what this article suggests.

I get some of the alt right has a problem with Google firing Damore but this
article is ridiculous, IMO.

~~~
batty_alex
First, How does this have anything to do with the alt-right?

That's just a distraction from your argument that we shouldn't criticize the
actions of Google because they give away some research. Google, and others,
have turned open source into a free marketing campaign. Most of it is only
open source in the "source available" sense.

You could fork it, but the sheer size and magnitude of insider contributions
makes it as useful as packaged software that came with source code.

~~~
jacksmith21006
It appears a lot of the negative Google stuff I read is driven by emotions
upset with the alt right thinking they are against them. Seems to have started
with firing Damore.

I have ZERO problem criticizing anyone. But if we look at all the tech
companies there has never been any tech company that give away more IP than
Google. Nobody even close.

So my post is a lot more about removing the social politics emotions and look
at actual data.

It is crazy giving away Borg and the K8S trademark. But Google has open
sourced so much stuff. We have five OSs today. iOS, OS X, Windows, Android and
ChromeOS.

Two are open source. Yes I realize there was a OSS of Apple OSs but that is
NOT what is used today.

But then Chrome and well so many other things. But look at giving away
Map/Reduce and GFS and so many other things in papers.

I tire a bit of the bitching on HN and really worry Google will end giving
away stuff. It is hard to see why they continue. There is little in it for
them.

~~~
scarface74
_have ZERO problem criticizing anyone. But if we look at all the tech
companies there has never been any tech company that give away more IP than
Google. Nobody even close._

Google only "gives away" IP that isn't part of their core business - just like
Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft. Where is the code for Google crawler and search
algorithm? Gmail? Google Play Services? The back end for Google Docs?

~~~
jacksmith21006
Would argue nothing is more core than Borg. So would disagree.

I do think they are holding back some stuff and a big one is SDC stuff.

Plus we do not get the info until next release. So we got gen 1 TPUs after Gen
2. We will probably get gen 2 details with gen 3 release.

But Google shares so much more than any other tech company. I think possibly
ever?

~~~
scarface74
What has Google open sourced that would put it at a competitive disadvantage
if a competitor uses it? Android? Earlier on they really didn't have a choice
if they wanted to compete with Microsoft with the OEMs. When they became
basically the only game in town for device manufacturers, they closef off much
of what made Android Android to most people. Even Apple open sources stuff
when they want to gain traction in a market as does Microsoft.

How is Google's strategy any different from Microsoft's and Netflix's? It
would have been unthinkable a few years ago that MS would open source .Net and
make it cross platform or gone through the trouble of creating Visual Studio
Code that supports almost every popular language.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Android and Amazon using for the Echo and much of their hardware?

~~~
scarface74
Google didn't have a choice but to "open source" Android to compete for OEMs
against Microsoft. But as soon as they gained dominance, they started closing
off more and more of what makes Android what it is to most people. Look at how
many of Google Services are not only not available on Amazon devices, Google
actively blocked YouTube from being on Amazon devices.

Besides, Android itself doesn't make Google money - advertising and to a
lesser extent Google Play does. Why else would Google pay Apple $2 billion a
year to be the preferred search provider on iOS?

------
jahvo
>The “extinguish” with GMail is also well underway - it’s infamous for having
an extremely strict spam filter for incoming emails from people who run
personal or niche mail servers

And thank God for that. That's why their antispam is sooo good.

~~~
jcranmer
Google didn't invent the reputation-based antispam, or the DNS blacklisting,
or all the annoying antispam features that make running your own email server
difficult. The only thing Google added to the mix was applying its famous
quality of customer service (or rather, lack thereof) to the problem.

~~~
crummy
At the time I signed up for Gmail they had by far the best antispam filter I'd
seen (online or local). I would regularly have ~1000 spam emails per month in
my spam box and false positives or negatives were extremely rare (~1/year?)

~~~
superkuh
How would you know about the emails to you that were blocked and false
positives?

~~~
crummy
They went into the spam box.

------
nukeop
Google gets 97% of its income from selling ads and analytics, everything else
they do or produce exists only to serve this goal and to strengthen their
monopoly and entrench their position even further. A browser to dictate
internet standards so they can push towards more surveillance, a mobile
operating system so they can control most of the world's mobile devices with
an iron fist, email service and cloud storage platform so they can get better
profiling data and so on.

Any code that is shared for free under the guise of "open sourcing" is most of
the time either a byproduct of their internal research that will not lose any
value by sharing it (or will actually make non-employees extend it and work on
it for free for Google's benefit), or something so specific to the company
that nobody stands to gain anything from adopting it.

Google is first and foremost an advertising and user profiling company, it is
useful to think about them from this perspective as it explains most of their
actions with perfect clarity.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Actually 88% but close.

~~~
nukeop
At their size it's hard to estimate but it's definitely in the 90% range. I've
seen estimates of 85-99% of revenue coming from advertising.

~~~
singron
You don't have to estimate it. They put the actual number in their earnings
report.

~~~
jacksmith21006
They do on revenues but not for earnings.

------
superflyguy
Am I missing something here? Just seems like moaning. And the irony of the
link on the side of the page to a Minecraft clone that's been embraced,
extended and then abandoned because the author just can't be bothered any more
(but you can send him money and maybe he'll change his mind) isn't lost on me.

~~~
titzer
> link on the side of the page to a Minecraft clone that's been embraced,
> extended and then abandoned

I'm not sure how a person doing a clone of something owned by a billion dollar
corporation (Microsoft)...and then giving up on it...is the same thing. At
all.

------
akerl_
They're extinguishing all the parts of the web that I didn't like: email spam,
slow web page loads on mobile devices, etc.

Hope they keep up the good work.

~~~
gcp
_slow web page loads on mobile devices_

Mostly slow because they need to display a lot of...Google Ads?

------
aceon48
AMP's point isn't to "reward" faster pages. The mobile web is garbage and 80%
of pages are hot dumpster UX fires that take several second to load.

AMP's point is to help standardize the excellence of the few pages that
actually are performant. Any rankings boost was a carrot for early adopters.
In july, page speed will have greater importantance ranking for pages
generally.

