
The Two Faces of AMP - robin_reala
https://timkadlec.com/remembers/2018-02-14-the-two-faces-of-amp/
======
lukestevens
The particularly gross thing about the AMP project is Google's abuse of the
concept of open source to recruit volunteer technical labor to implement their
anti-FB corporate strategy.

It's just corporate astroturfing.

AMP is obviously conceived, funded, and implemented by Google and its
employees. If you squinted your eyes and tilted your head just right you could
see a "good for the web" angle with faster mobile pages.

But AMP for email & AMP Stories have nothing to do with making the web faster,
it's just another part of Google's attempt to essentially fork the web &
control the platform so they can compete with Facebook by shoehorning
FB/IG/Messenger features on to the web (Instant Articles, Stories, Carousels,
"interactive" email etc).

That's bad in and of itself, and for Google to present its corporate strategy
as an "open source" project so it can enlist the help of volunteers and those
passionate about the web is disingenuous in the extreme.

There are far more worthy projects that could use volunteer help than a $750
billion company's corporate strategy.

Further thoughts here:
[https://twitter.com/lukestevens/status/963905898895699968](https://twitter.com/lukestevens/status/963905898895699968)

~~~
refulgentis
If only I had a nickel for every online commenter who swore up and down that
no one else implements or supports AMP, and then uses that to justify claiming
Google is trying to fork the web...all major platforms pursuing end-arounds
mobile ad garbage, _except_ Facebook and Apple, use and contribute to AMP.

Anyways, I'm just happy to finally have usable web results on mobile.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
People's participation in AMP isn't voluntary. They _have_ to implement and
support AMP, or they get penalized by Google Search.

~~~
Jyaif
Bing, Cloudfare.

~~~
nine_k
They sure exist! But Google's search has like 4/5 of the market.

If you optimize for the bottom line (as a business should), what will you pay
most attention to?

~~~
JeremyBanks
I think his point was that Bing implemented AMP voluntarily, without being
pressured as you suggest publishers were:
[https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-
joins-...](https://blogs.bing.com/search/September-2016/bing-app-joins-the-
amp-open-source-effort)

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Bing's primary pressure is a need to compete performance wise with Google. The
fact that the implementation is bad doesn't mean they don't need to match on
the metrics.

~~~
so33
To play devil’s advocate: the reason Bing can implement their own AMP cache
and conform to AMP pages so easily is because AMP is an open project.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
Nobody said the problem was AMP's code being available. The issue is the way
Google is forcing their framework's dominance using their search monopoly.

------
nobleach
It will never be okay to give preferred treatment to those that use your
framework. This basically is telling all other framework authors, "never mind,
Google has decided the one that anyone that everyone will have to use (if they
want in to the SEO club)" At this point, they're no longer saying, "we've
found the most pertinent search results". Instead, they're saying, "our
friends provide the best stuff... don't bother looking at the others"

------
nixpulvis
The basement dream of the web is dying faster and faster. At the hand of
large, scared companies. It's ironic that the more powerful you get the more
scared you become.

~~~
paulddraper
The phrase "nothing to lose" comes to mind about the fearless.

------
throwaway_54321
At what point do the people working in tech come to the realization that
Google has become a problem that must be eliminated if the web is to continue
to flourish?

------
seanwilson
> The letter calls on the AMP team to make two primary changes:

> Instead of granting premium placement in search results only to AMP, provide
> the same perks to all pages that meet an objective, neutral performance
> criterion such as Speed Index. Publishers can then use any technical
> solution of their choice.

How would you measure this in a way that couldn't be gamed?

I'm not saying AMP is the best solution, but the way AMP prevents you from
doing things that hurt performance makes it much easier for you to know for
sure an AMP page has certain performance properties.

~~~
zbentley
This might be a somewhat controversial (or just reviled) opinion, but: _why
should search engine rankings care about page performance?_

As soon as Google, the thing that indexes for _relevance_ starts caring about
an orthogonal behavior like performance, my ability to trust that I'll see
relevant things first is compromised. Balancing between two good criteria
dilutes both, basically.

Performance impacts a page's relevance in one case: if it _never_ renders
(times out), in which case it isn't indexable anyway. Otherwise, users have
"stop" and "back" buttons at their disposal if a relevant page doesn't load
fast enough for them.

Performance is important, but should not be a criterion for search results.
The fact that it's may be incorporated into the ranking system is at best
extremely misguided and at worst baldly avaricious.

~~~
seanwilson
> This might be a somewhat controversial (or just reviled) opinion, but: why
> should search engine rankings care about page performance?

They'll care because faster results will generally mean happier and more
engaged users who'll want to use your search engine again. This applies even
more for mobile users where you might be waiting 10s of seconds before
anything is rendered on a slow page.

~~~
zbentley
That concerns me, if true. If users will blame the search engine for directing
them to a page that is relevant yet slow, and the logical solution to that is
that the search engine should ensure all pages are fast, doesn't that open up
a bit of a can of worms about the search engine itself? I.e. if users blame
the search engine for providing results for "whose religion is the best" that
they _disagree_ with, wouldn't the same logic incentivize the search engine
makers to filter those results for users whose religious preference is known?

It seems like a bad tradeoff to make: marginally increase user engagement by
serving faster pages at the cost of potentially compromising the primary
reason (relevance) that people use your search engine? I'm sure there is data
supporting that decision, but this doesn't make it sit any better with me.
It's like going to the library and saying "I'd like the complete works of
Shakespeare, please" and having the librarian say "well, here's our theater
section, but please pay special attention to these abridged/easy-reading
versions of Shakespeare, since we think they'll make for a more enjoyable
experience for you. The complete works are on this floor somewhere; you can
find them yourself."

I'm not saying that we'll automatically slide down that slope, just that it's
there, and a bit slippery.

~~~
seanwilson
Yep, I'm not saying it's without issues but I can see why Google wants to show
users fast pages. I can relate when using a mobile: it's super frustrating
when you're on the move, need a quick answer, the first link takes 20 seconds
to load so you go back, you try another etc.

------
subhajeet2107
AMP implementation also sucks, why cant i use !important in css for AMP ? Also
try to convert any user generated page to an AMP page and have fun with all
the validation errors. AMP might be a good thing for web in general but the
way it is handled poorly by google , atleast Facebok Instant Articles dont
have that many restrictions

------
djhworld
Google have to answer to shareholders, it's in their interest to keep users
within their ecosystem.

