Does it? Alphabet quarterly reports don't list YouTube revenues and expenses separately, and i imagine something like YouTube costs a shit load of money in storage and bandwidth.
Technically (and by accident) what I originally said is still true— it makes a lot of money (but may cost a lot of money) and so it still looks good on quarterly reports (esp. if they bury the costs) so they’ll keep it around.
Plus, I wouldn’t be surprised if my Google search results were informed and improved by their data about my watch history.
> The good news gets even better; non-AMP pages make considerably more revenue per pageview than AMP pages. Initially, I assumed this was due to the nature of how ads load on AMP, however, recent Antitrust lawsuits have proposed that hindering ad competition was a feature and that all non-amp ad tags, such as my company, Ezoic’s, were delayed by 1 second to make them less effective. It is also alleged that Google let their own exchange win, even when someone else bid more!
Somewhere, in a parallel universe, people are going to jail and paying substantial fines for this behavior. In this universe, however, politicians don’t seem to think there is a moral hazard in the fact that those of us who work in this industry see what happened and think, “if you get big enough, it doesn’t matter if you get caught.”
Unfortunately a lot of HN readers are dismissing this or calling it partisan grandstanding, just because it's Texas that filed it.
I don't doubt they "won" in the end, but I'm baffled that they brag about "competing" like that.
Oracle for years secretly lobbied states, Justice Department to sue Google - Bloomberg (2020-12-23)
where can I read more on why they allowed this?
To think, just a decade ago, this article seemed paranoid, to the point where even the author seemed to think it was an oversight in the Terms of Service:
Interestingly, they give (gave?) themselves redistribution and performance rights for Drive contents at the same time. How long until they start openly using those rights, I wonder?
I am aware that Whatsapp does this and have avoided Whatsapp’s Google Drive backup overall.
This is really not true. I was able to find the previous discussion on HN where someone linked to the Github issue about this design decision: https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/issues/3133 . Note the root goal of this was actually to get non-AMP ads to run faster. This was all fully transparent, and was not some nefarious hidden functionality that Google tacked on in the hopes of tanking other ad networks.
Look, I hate AMP as much as your average HN poster, and I don't really disagree that Google is willing to make "technological improvements" as long as they hurt the other guy, and not Google. But I think the discussion gets better, not worse, when folks are more honest about the real reasoning behind why something is implemented the way it is.
My fear is that they are not going to jail or paying fines, they are being exiled... to our universe!
Not on AMP pages. AMP's design prevents user-visible reflow.
(Disclosure: I work on ads at Google, speaking only for myself.)
AMP had several design goals, one of which was that it should be impossible to create pages with certain types of bad user experience, including reflow. An AMP page requires that every element on the page be sized only by information directly visible in the HTML (including inline CSS, but no inline JS) which allows the browser to lay the whole page out immediately. When an ad loads off screen there can be a request to the AMP runtime to resize the slot, but the runtime will reject the request if the resize might cause user visible effects.
More details: https://blog.amp.dev/2020/04/16/cumulative-layout-shift-in-a...
Example ad networks that work well with delayed ads (that don't jump) include Mediavine and AdThrive.
It’s literally changed my internet experience in my home.
I had multiple instances of sites just not working because of the pihole was blocking something. This would result in me putting it in non-block mode for a little bit, rinse and repeat. I can't have that kind of hassle when non-technical people use the internet too. At least with per-device adblockers it's a single click to disable/enable the adblocker if a site is acting funny.
Basically, it wasn't any faster than just blocking ads on the device itself & added another thing on the network for me to manage.
It took about 2/3 hours of work though.
Or of hanging an air freshener on your rearview mirror: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/12/us/police-shooting-air-fr...
I don't know, but the US penal system needs a revamp anyhow.
When some character fudges a spreadsheet or sets up a viscous cycle in business, it is more abstract. We’ve all done it to some degree (received an undeserved discount, more change than owed, etc), and the black and white “wrongness” varies.
Another consideration is that the punishment for white collar crime is very severe in terms of loss of agency and autonomy. Once you’re convicted of a felony, you’re kryptonite — you’re trading your comfy middle class existence for something riskier and worse. Typical suburban punter is losing most of your friends and probably your home and spouse. The kids lose their nice school or get stuck in a grubby apartment. White collar criminals have more to lose, so the punishment standard is different.
> "I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly.
> "I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"
> "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”
White-collar crime has effects. Every time people are encouraged to clock out, then clean up their station, that's 15 minutes of wage theft. Heck, sometimes this becomes so common that the criminals work to make it legal. Every time that Amazon has their mandatory daily exit screening, that's 30-60 minutes of time that should be on the clock, but is completely unpaid, legal and SCOTUS-approved, and wildly unethical.
The parent comment quoted saying they were loading their ads before ads from competitor networks.
Noone said anything about Jan 6, or anything touching on the event.
You are obviously trying to shift the conversation away from how Google controls AMP and apparently used it to gain an advantage in the ad market (basically an antitrust issue) to a partisan political conversation.
On the other hand, Wall Street put many people's loved ones in clear danger, leaving them in the street, without jobs and without health insurance in 2008 and none of them went to jail.
Yeah, no, you really couldn't. It sounds like you've never been the victim of direct, physical violence, and the psychological effects it causes.
If it's not going to be imprisonment, then the fines need to be much quicker, and much higher; enough to threaten a corparation's viability. For some perspective the largest fine/court settlement in the past few years is VW US's, which was 37 billion, and vs. a tech firm the 2012 FTC settlement with facebook at 5 billion. EU's largest antitrust fine ever (vs. google in 2017) was just 2.4 billion. Those kind of costs are so low that they're unlikely to be preemptively discouraging, especially given how rare they are; alphabet's revenue in 2020 was 180 billion, and it's market cap is a little less than 10 times that.
Of course absurd fines that are rarely imposed are more like a reverse lottery than anything else; not exactly ideal either, really.
Which is why in new legislation, fines are proportional - GDPR has fines at max 4% of global yearly revenue or 100 million euros, whichever is higher.
In other words, laughably low.
> or 100 million euros
Unless you're a small business, in which case they'll happily bury you.
And if you claim that the workers don't deserve it, well, then exactly who DOES deserve it?
Really the possibilities of solution to some of these issues are endless, limited only by our creativity. We're just stuck as a society with what we already have and there is huge push back against anything out of the ordinary or creative or different when it comes to government and our governance models.
The idea that white collar crimes don't damage people's lives is easily debunked: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/economic-do...
Seems like a horribly awful world to me - would you extend this to Ad blockers as well? And when was the last time you've seen how horrible mainstream web is, with its autoplaying video popups?
AMP isn't the best solution, but what you're proposing is just horrifying. If anything, we should standardize this behaviour in browsers and make sure the ads never interfere with loaded contents. Let's not destroy the web even more so ad peddlers get more money.
The parent comment quoted saying they were loading their ads before ads from competitor networks.
Noone said anything about when the content was loaded. Google is the largest ad peddler.
You are obviously trying to shift the conversation away from how Google controls AMP and apparently used it to gain an advantage in the ad market (basically an antitrust issue) towards a generic conversation of ads are bad, but Google is good.
The parent was complaing about corporations being large enough to ignore antitrust legislation.
That is a really horrible accusation of something I haven't done. The OP is the one proposing jail-like punishment for actions that only lower the ad revenue and actually benefit the customer. It has nothing to do with defending Google (especially since I'm also talking about AdBlockers, which could easily fall into "coporation allows adblockers to lower revenue" interpretation).
Please don't look for hidden agendas where there aren't any.
False, it only does that for their competition.
And this article does what is often done in the AMP discussion and (disingenuously) demonstrates that you can make a non-AMP page that's smaller/faster than an AMP page. No one ever contested that. No one ever doubted it. But AMP isn't the alternative to your minimalist page, it's the alternative to the grotesquely overloaded media site where over time every single web technology gets smashed into a monstrous, massive pig of a page. Comparing the AMP pages of a news source and what they serve in their "full" web experience and it's absolute night and day.
I do wish we had a "web lite" mode that we could turn on, if only for certain domains.
1) Google clearly leveraging it to take over more of the web,
2) The scroll hijacking that made it feel worse-performing (plus just otherwise unpleasant) than middle-weight websites normally do,
3) That some of the sites I most commonly accidentally end up viewing through AMP are useless in their AMP version, so it just adds a hunt-and-click for no reason (Reddit is a big offender)
Google is one problem, one is a technical implementation problem, and the other is an ecosystem problem.
There are some options for activating reader view even before loading a web site. I imagine it would be a pretty light lift from there, to create an extension that keeps a domain list which automatically prepends the reader view URL prefix.
The magic prefix is
I wonder if amp intentionally breaks reader mode, to force viewing of Google served mobile ads.
When Google was forced to cut a deal with News Corp last month (the Australian debacle) that would bring News content from the open web into their News app, AMP became much less important to them anyway.
All in all, yes, another loss for the open web, but I think the picture is more complicated then the "AMP is evil" meme.
Really? Scroll jacking is good effort?
Re-inventing a bunch of tags, just because, is a good effort?
It had a good claimed goal: make heavy sites load faster, particularly on low bandwidth/high latency connections.
The approach taken was, like everything Google does, heavy handed, tone deaf, and instantly defended by fanboys waiting for another chance to suck on the google teat.
You get to choose what browser and plugins you use. That goes a long way.
Overall it just feels like hack upon hidden hack with a sliver of standardisation on top.
1. Introduce $badThing with claims about page load performance.
2. tell sites they need to use $badThing to get into the “carousel”
3. Scale back the requirement of #2 just soon enough that you can argue against any claims of market manipulation via your monopoly.
4. (Continue to) Profit, because 80% of the sites that implemented it aren’t going to just rip it out now that it’s there.
Even for those who acknowledge Google may do shitty things, but are more interested in pulling their dick or what have you, rather than doing the work to make a great $thing, AMP gives them an easy out. No interpretation required, no need to worry about timings or what a "core web vital" is. Just follow this bouncing ball. Monkey see, monkey do.
(b) that assumes the dev is allowed to. Plenty of middle and upper management will always defer to "the industry" over any amount developer insight - particularly when the pitch is essentially "lets remove this thing so we can do some more work ourselves to achieve the same result".
(c) even if the dev wants to, and management OK it - maintenance is literally that: maintaining the status quo. Evolution, particularly on the scale of large sites, is a long term thing.
Big news sites are some of the worst offenders for junking up a page. Google could have "fixed" that by using the metrics discussed in the article to determine "carousel" results, from the start. But then they'd just have made a bunch of websites load faster, and wouldn't have added yet another tentacle around the web.
I think I've only met one dev in the last 8 years that was that misguided, although I am somewhat limited in sociability so maybe just didn't realize it.
I'd hope that web developers in particular would see more of the reality of Google's attacks on the open web. But then I've also seen an alarming number of "web developers" making claims like "I just wish Firefox and Safari would adopt Blink too, then we wouldn't have cross browser issues..." without a hint of irony, nor apparently knowledge of the last 15 years of web history.
But I'm also realistic. There are developers, both web- and other, who absolutely defend AMP, and Google's approach.
Vast majority of owners will have a maintenance guy to call up if something stops working to patch it, until it gets too dysfunctional and needs a re-write.
Websites deserve their own traffic, not Google's.
You cannot switch AMP cache to another vendor if you want Google rank your AMP site higher.  You also need a speical TLS certificate with the CanSignHttpExchanges extension that can only be get from DigiCert (for a price) and not from Let's Encrypt .
AMP being a subset of HTML, that does not look accurate.
Using a different CDN shouldn't significantly impact a site's income, but using AMP may have.
The article just "hopes" it will die, it doesn't point to any specific source that it will.
Quite the opposite, it says "Google will continue to support AMP" on the Google Page Experience update.
> I’ve had the pleasure of working with more than twenty thousand publishers in the five years since AMP’s launch, and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a single reason that a publisher uses AMP other than to obtain this priority placement.
If there's no reason to use AMP other than to waste money, it's very likely it will be used less and less. And then it's just a matter of time before Google pulls the plug.
If google required a blood sacrifice to get on the first page of results, a huge number of websites would reply "animal or human?"
In fact, I suspect it will only affect the small minority of sites that work better without AMP, the ones everyone who dislike AMP talk about. But for most mainstream news sites, I find AMP better than the typically bloated non-AMP version. And I bet Google will have the same opinion when ranking sites.
This is excellent news, but unfortunately, I don't think it will change the situation much. I wish it would, but most websites owners simply don't care about performance.
If only web developers would follow this advice...
The criticisms of AMP regarding how evil Google has been with it are all valid.
But to the average user that doesn't care (Remember, HN users are anything but average!), AMP is an absolute godsend. Normally when I view a news article on mobile, it's plagued with the scroll jumping around as things load, obnoxious controls, frequent freezing, and just overall a terrible experience.
AMP for the most part fixed all that. Pages load in only a second or two, and once they've loaded, they're smooth to scroll though and STAY smooth.
So yeah...AMP is here to stay, and the users are grateful.
So long as google strongly influences page views it lives
At least with Chrome, one related performance advantage will remain, given AMP pages will remain preloaded from Google results pages, whereas non-AMP pages won't be.
Why is this related? On mobile, Google preloads AMP pages in the carousel that are in the Google cache, which will obviously give them a page-load time advantage. Why not do that for more sites? Avoiding third-parties (i.e., third-party v. the Google results page) from being able to detect when they appear in search results and getting data (like IP) from the user regardless of whether or not they click on the result.
Is this insurmountable? Can you outperform it? Sure, but it's inevitably going to be harder as a result.
(Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
Kind of depressing when you think of all the money and engineering hours that went into trying to make websites work with AMP that could have been spent on just making their existing code less shitty...
"Did you hear about AMP? Yeah we switched to it last week. I heard Google would start weighting pages that didn't use it down. Wait, you haven't made the switch yet? Well... I don't know, we'll see what happens..."
If I smell FUD as a marketing technique, I'm out. The odds that you're trying to sell me something I don't need are astronomical -- and in four years, management will be driving me to the next big fad under FOMO.
Most likely (one, or some, or any of these reasons):
- there's a potential court battle regarding AMP, and Google wants to get ahead
- publishers are leaving the platform
- there are new advertising opportunities that bring as much money to Google, or more, than AMP (or are better than potentially losing money on courts and to publishers leaving)
They had this before, they could have just expanded it, they preferred to introduce AMP instead. Worse, introduced AMP with the whole corporate backing of it, they knew what they were doing.
Can anyone please explain what "passing core web vitals" means? It links to very lengthy articles full of SEO jargon that I don't understand.
Is this different from PageSpeed Insights? If not, why doesn't PageSpeed Insights suffice? All I'm doing is creating websites that are as accessible and easy to use as possible. I shouldn't need to sign up and give my data to Google to do that.
HTML5 (with CSS and JS) and HTTP is all I should have to deal with, registering for search engines seems backwards to me.
The next step is to highlight when your need page hits the right benchmarks to qualify for “Top Stories”
My worry is that most sites won’t qualify and AMP continues
Ever heard of Web Bundles?
This is a genuine question. It is such a simple feature, zipping an HTML file with all of its resources. Why do we need that many standards for it. Is it NIH syndrome or are there technical reasons in doing so?
The key would probably have to be delivered in-band, requiring a TOFU security policy, but that's not so bad.
Ideally the browser would also keep track of which version of the app it loaded last time, and give the user the option of fetching a newer version if one is available, to prevent malicious updates.
The more important things to specify are the browser behaviors when working with such files and the signature mechanisms, and those specifications you'd also need if you reused a format.
So I know nothing about AMP, but I've skimmed through the Google's documentation of signed exchanges, and it seemed like a good thing. I assume that it is the foundation of AMP. Isn't the point of signed exchanges that you, the publisher, don't have to invest in beefy servers and CDNs, and instead rely on third parties (for fee or free) to store the (signed) content? Of course AMP being a Google service the monopoly thing is hard to ignore.
> AMP created all kinds of problems, from analytics to ad serving to logins.
Oh no, it hinders competition with Google for surveillance and ad spam!
I wrote another comment in this discussion about this:
Yeah I won't hold my breath.
AMP is about control, not speed:
It seems like a pretty good search engine for desktop (research, tech, etc.), but for anything I want while on the road (community stuff, culture, restaurants) it's not good at all. But I suck it up and use DDG on my iPhone anyway, better that than risk losing my temper and throwing my phone into traffic.
Every year when WWDC rolls around, I hope that Apple is finally ready to announce WebExtensions for iOS. I'm pretty sure that building an AMP buster would be child's play. Keeping my fingers crossed… again… X,,
I think this is backwards. Google offers to host your content on their domains, and if you want that it requires you to use certain markup, and only certain ads.
If your job is monetizing content, or if you want to raise some abstract "time spend on domain" metric, then I can understand how this can be unpopular. But if your goal is to have your content read by many people, have very fast load times, and spend a bit less on traffic, then it is beneficial.
But that was not the problem. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with Google offering AMP as a content hosting service subject to certain syntax and content limitations.
The problem was that, however fast your load times were in practice, all else being equal Google's search engine would penalise your ranking compared to using Google's AMP—all under the pretence of favouring "very fast load times".
we created it anyways. now i am looking for alpha testers. my email is in my profile.
oh yeah, it is AMP free as AMP is .... a horrible developer hostile, brittle and free internet hostile technology, not even mentioning the QA overhead it burdens on every project.