Speaking of ads leaving bad experiences. There's some ad on AppleInsider that keeps scrolling my screen to see it...while I'm trying to read (and even comment on this post)
Both are hosted on the original domain of the publisher. AMP is simply a set of Javascript libraries to minimize the amount of extra code that has to be loaded with every page request.
Moreover, Google Chrome on mobile devices (both iOS and Android) already does this:
For each AMP page, the link button on top reveals (and copies) the canonical version as intended by the publisher (and the URL does become visible when you click it on Chrome). The reason for this is exactly that the publisher domains conveys trust. Presumably, Safari uses exactly the same mechanism as Chrome to get the non-AMP version of a page.
Please, not another Google shill.
So I have to load the AMP page first, and then click on the link to reload the full page after wasting time and bandwidth loading the AMP page I had no intention of viewing?
How come you can't see the sheer stupidity of this?
One odd AMP benefit for you the user with the faster stripped down pages? Probably a few less ads which some folks I would expect to say is a good thing, plus less ability for those webmasters to directly track users tho neither ads nor tracking are actually killed off (ignore those two claims by the writer as he was mistaken) but that becomes perhaps one reason for some website owners NOT to like it. Plus they either need to design for mobile only or maintain two sets of pages, one for desktop and one AMP'd which can be more work for unclear benefits, and they relinquish some control over delivering those pages to Google but benefit from less server load on their own systems. There's both good and bad in other words, but still there should be a better way that doesn't use Google caching and Google optimization to speed things up since Google's presence is already so domineering on the web.
All the big techs were better when they weren't so big IMHO. It seems as tho a very small handful of ultra-rich and powerful companies with connections that match will end up making the rules for all of us to abide by. Google is but one of those that won't get better if they get bigger IMO. Same as it ever was I guess. Welcome to the new land barons.
FWIW, over on 9to5mac they're saying that Google supports this move and had asked Apple to implement it.
Oh well there ya go. Does that mean the fun is over in this thread? Dang....
EDIT: Yes sir it seems you are correct. It's actually Google asking for this. "Just wanted to clarify that we specifically requested Apple (and other browser vendors) to do this. AMP’s policy states that platforms should share the canonical URL of an article whenever technically possible. This browser change makes it technically possible in Safari. We cannot wait for other vendors to implement."
I had never read a related Google Blog post about this from a few months back, nor was aware Google had implemented very significant changes in AMP earlier in the year that made it ridiculously easy for iOS users to load/shar/save the original pages rather than the AMP'd ones. My bad. Should do more reading myself before posting. https://developers.googleblog.com/2017/02/whats-in-amp-url.html
Good. AMP was the last straw for me with Google. I stopped using Google search for anything but images (most notably reverse image search). I use DuckDuckGo now. Its image search is functional but inferior. Google's search was already pissing me off by how it makes too many presumptions and ignores quotes, etc.
AMP was a completely enraging experience. AMP pages don't scroll like normal Safari pages, reader doesn't work on them, links don't work right in them, and they hid the original URL. The updated version that shows the original URL in a header bar is half broken most of the time. Complete garbage. I'm not going to consume the internet while filtered through a crippling pile of garbage like AMP.
Screw Google. They're just another freakishly huge and overbearing corporate monster that thinks it knows what's best for humanity. Their whole business model is to make product out of their users. I wish I wasn't so invested in their gmail service. I should move my saved messages to a local archive. The day Google rids themselves of Gmail, a LOT of internet users will be screwed.
Agree with all the above. I dipped my toe in the water with Gmail but am so glad I stayed off it. I’m happy to pay (Fastmail.com) to run this important service and I maintain my own domain-name so I’m not tied to them either.
gatorguy said: One odd AMP benefit for you the user with the faster stripped down pages? Probably a few less ads which some folks I would expect to say is a good thing, plus less ability for those webmasters to directly track users tho neither ads nor tracking are actually killed off (ignore those two claims by the writer as he was mistaken) but that becomes perhaps one reason for some website owners NOT to like it. Plus they either need to design for mobile only or maintain two sets of pages, one for desktop and one AMP'd which can be more work for unclear benefits, and they relinquish some control over delivering those pages to Google but benefit from less server load on their own systems. ...
All the big techs were better when they weren't so big IMHO. It seems as tho a very small handful of ultra-rich and powerful companies with connections that match will end up making the rules for all of us to abide by. Google is but one of those that won't get better if they get bigger IMO. Same as it ever was I guess. Welcome to the new land barons.
Well, if a website is designed properly (i.e.: responsive) it should already properly scale down to a mobile screen, and possibly drop off or modify components that don't play well on mobile. But, AMP goes even further and strips the content down to something more like 'reader' modes have been doing... just the article text with possibly images and playable video. (Though, I'm sure stuff will come to eventually bloat it back up.)
That opens it up to a wider range of mobile, unless the site designers are really careful about fall-back (which most aren't). So, it's not inherently a bad idea. (Especially given the horrific state of so many websites. And, even those that aren't horrific aren't going to drop every image/element that isn't absolutely necessary, as some mobile users might want that stuff! AMP is an alternative.)
That said, I am always a bit suspicious of some of these Google technologies (or other big players), in pushing things into self-serving boxes. For example AMP's setup in the way the results are returned to mobile, would favor users going back to Google after reading, vs maybe staying on your site or following one of your links.
Another interesting move to watch - which I haven't completely thought through the Google-favoring implications - is when Chrome starts showing warnings about any site that isn't HTTPS (coming in October).
Both are hosted on the original domain of the publisher. AMP is simply a set of Javascript libraries to minimize the amount of extra code that has to be loaded with every page request.
Moreover, Google Chrome on mobile devices (both iOS and Android) already does this:
For each AMP page, the link button on top reveals (and copies) the canonical version as intended by the publisher (and the URL does become visible when you click it on Chrome). The reason for this is exactly that the publisher domains conveys trust. Presumably, Safari uses exactly the same mechanism as Chrome to get the non-AMP version of a page.
Please, not another Google shill.
So I have to load the AMP page first, and then click on the link to reload the full page after wasting time and bandwidth loading the AMP page I had no intention of viewing?
How come you can't see the sheer stupidity of this?
AMP is just a standard set of Javascript libraries and rules for producing *valid* HTML. Before AMP, every site used its own favorite libraries which meant that to load a single page you had to load also hundred of KB of libraries before the page would build.
With AMP the library is shared among all sites which means that new page loads are fast. Following AMP guidelines, you can still accomplish most of the features of a non-AMP website but it's guarantees to load fast.
It just took a big player such as Google to implement something like AMP and build momentum (because there are scale economics and it becomes more useful if more sites shares the library). It's obvious why Google likes AMP: it makes the mobile web faster and the mobile web is open and searchable. Google has no interest in having all content disappear in closed apps because the open web is unusable. Since I personally like mobile browsing a lot because I like to look at a variety of publishers without installing dozens of apps, Google's interest in this aspect are aligned with mine. Facebook doesn't like AMP (because it makes Instant pages unnecessarily).
Many publishers are going exclusively AMP. Ebay for example, on a mobile browser, mostly loads AMP pages.
Moreover, Google implemented earlier this year features so that the non-AMP link would be easily shared (as the Verge article points out that I linked above). I am pretty sure that Apple is using exactly that intended mechanism.
Speaking of ads leaving bad experiences. There's some ad on AppleInsider that keeps scrolling my screen to see it...while I'm trying to read (and even comment on this post)
You using a Mac?
Also, install uBlock Origin and Ghostery.
Ghostery has gone over to the Dark Side. I no longer recommend it.
bigmushroom said: ... Google's interest in this aspect are aligned with mine. Facebook doesn't like AMP (because it makes Instant pages unnecessarily).
I agree, while I'm always pretty suspicious of what Google is up to... it's quite clear Facebook is up to absolutely no good when it comes to the Internet. They are working on a modern incarnation of CompuServe.
Comments
Also, install uBlock Origin and Ghostery.
https://www.semrush.com/blog/to-amp-or-not-to-amp-what-is-best-for-your-website/
One odd AMP benefit for you the user with the faster stripped down pages? Probably a few less ads which some folks I would expect to say is a good thing, plus less ability for those webmasters to directly track users tho neither ads nor tracking are actually killed off (ignore those two claims by the writer as he was mistaken) but that becomes perhaps one reason for some website owners NOT to like it. Plus they either need to design for mobile only or maintain two sets of pages, one for desktop and one AMP'd which can be more work for unclear benefits, and they relinquish some control over delivering those pages to Google but benefit from less server load on their own systems. There's both good and bad in other words, but still there should be a better way that doesn't use Google caching and Google optimization to speed things up since Google's presence is already so domineering on the web.
All the big techs were better when they weren't so big IMHO. It seems as tho a very small handful of ultra-rich and powerful companies with connections that match will end up making the rules for all of us to abide by. Google is but one of those that won't get better if they get bigger IMO. Same as it ever was I guess. Welcome to the new land barons.
EDIT: Yes sir it seems you are correct. It's actually Google asking for this.
"Just wanted to clarify that we specifically requested Apple (and other browser vendors) to do this. AMP’s policy states that platforms should share the canonical URL of an article whenever technically possible. This browser change makes it technically possible in Safari. We cannot wait for other vendors to implement."
I had never read a related Google Blog post about this from a few months back, nor was aware Google had implemented very significant changes in AMP earlier in the year that made it ridiculously easy for iOS users to load/shar/save the original pages rather than the AMP'd ones. My bad. Should do more reading myself before posting.
https://developers.googleblog.com/2017/02/whats-in-amp-url.html
https://protonmail.com/
That opens it up to a wider range of mobile, unless the site designers are really careful about fall-back (which most aren't). So, it's not inherently a bad idea. (Especially given the horrific state of so many websites. And, even those that aren't horrific aren't going to drop every image/element that isn't absolutely necessary, as some mobile users might want that stuff! AMP is an alternative.)
That said, I am always a bit suspicious of some of these Google technologies (or other big players), in pushing things into self-serving boxes. For example AMP's setup in the way the results are returned to mobile, would favor users going back to Google after reading, vs maybe staying on your site or following one of your links.
Another interesting move to watch - which I haven't completely thought through the Google-favoring implications - is when Chrome starts showing warnings about any site that isn't HTTPS (coming in October).
With AMP the library is shared among all sites which means that new page loads are fast. Following AMP guidelines, you can still accomplish most of the features of a non-AMP website but it's guarantees to load fast.
It just took a big player such as Google to implement something like AMP and build momentum (because there are scale economics and it becomes more useful if more sites shares the library). It's obvious why Google likes AMP: it makes the mobile web faster and the mobile web is open and searchable. Google has no interest in having all content disappear in closed apps because the open web is unusable. Since I personally like mobile browsing a lot because I like to look at a variety of publishers without installing dozens of apps, Google's interest in this aspect are aligned with mine. Facebook doesn't like AMP (because it makes Instant pages unnecessarily).
Many publishers are going exclusively AMP. Ebay for example, on a mobile browser, mostly loads AMP pages.
Moreover, Google implemented earlier this year features so that the non-AMP link would be easily shared (as the Verge article points out that I linked above). I am pretty sure that Apple is using exactly that intended mechanism.
So this whole is a non-story to start with.