Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Well, no, you want the highest quality source first that loads fast

AMP isn't forcing me to read fast newspaper A over slow newspaper B. It's letting me read slow newspaper B fast. I've never clicked on an AMP link for a source I didn't know.

> In my experience such measures tend to become permanent fixtures...Who will take that up? You? The EU?

You made an analogy to Microsoft bundling browsers earlier.

> I still don't see news websites getting any faster

They are [1].

> [websites are] already ridiculously fast

That's your preference. Mine is for them to be faster.

> Google's cash flow will not subsidize this because they now have the eyeballs. Sooner or later there will be a push for monetization

AMP is open source. If we'd gone the penalise-slow-pages route, every newspaper would have had to "roll their own" AMP in house. Even if Google throws a tax on later, readers got fast pages sooner and publishers got free code.

> There are other choices besides [crappy websites and efficient walled gardens]

In theory. In reality, that's the battleground.

[1] http://www.niemanlab.org/2014/09/how-nytimes-com-cut-load-ti...



> AMP is open source. If we'd gone the penalise-slow-pages route, every newspaper would have had to "roll their own" AMP in house.

Note that you have to use the Google CDN provided javascript, the 'open source' bit is as good as meaningless as long as that restriction is in place.


> have had to "roll their own" AMP in house.

That's called HTML. Nothing special.


>visit nytimes.com >10 seconds to load page

Maybe if you're using the Trump definition of fast...




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: