It seems like amp is trying to give users the same experience you have but without disabling JavaScript. Is that so obviously nefarious?
AMP can impose constraints because it's a corporate effort to re-frame content in a way that provides centralized ad serving, tracking, and the like. It gives the content publishers the same tools (ads, tracking) they have to provide themselves with on the open web, while simultaneously benefiting those like Google who will put their own viewport and context around that content. It's not that much different from when an individual wants to publish on Medium or Tumblr, so the platform provides the author with a box to put text in, a dashboard, view tracking, and stuff the author wants, while they get to host interesting content with which to attract an audience for ads. It's a win-win, symbiotic relationship, while on the self-hosted web, every publisher is on their own.
This isn't about HTML vs AMP at all. It's about business models, which are given in AMP, but left as an exercise for the publisher on the open web.
I think I'll pass, thanks
How much of that is correct? I don't know. I'm just explaining what (I think) the posts above were trying to say.
(Edit: spelling)
The best way to think of AMP is it's a list of things you're not allowed to do anymore when you make a website. It's just HTML with rules.
It seems like a roundabout way to do things.
Google noticed that the mobile web is still pretty slow, and they also noticed Facebook's Instant Articles initiative. Under Instant Articles, news sites provide a special RSS feed with limited HTML features to Facebook, who caches the results and shares ad revenue with the news site. As a result, viewing participating news sites in Facebook is faster than viewing them in a web browser, e.g. in Google search results.
Google saw this as a strategic threat, and said: "How can we do what Facebook's doing, making news sites provide fast lightweight HTML to Google and our users, but in a more Open way? At least somewhat more open?" AMP was the result.
When you use AMP on your site, a third party (Google--in principle anybody, but in fact just Google for the moment) can verify easily that a site will load quickly, by design. They don't have to launch a browser and run a speed index test; they know, for sure, that the page is going to be pretty fast.
A third party also knows that all AMP pages allow third parties to cache them. (Again, only Google is doing this today, but it could be anybody, e.g. Facebook could present AMP pages from a fast Facebook cache, too.)
Google takes no ad revenue from AMP pages, and supposedly doesn't rank AMP pages higher (except by virtue of the fact that AMP pages tend to be faster and faster pages rank better). AMP pages do also get the lightning-bolt badge in search results, which might encourage users to click on them. And AMP has a github and accepts actual PRs, so AMP is open in that sense, too, except that it's officially governed by Google, so it's not really very open in governance.
Folks here seem to be pretty skeptical of AMP; I think it's a mixed bag. One positive outcome of AMP would be if its HTML components eventually become official elements in a future HTML document, built into browsers. Then AMP would be nothing more than a set of guidelines and a validator; that sounds pretty good to me.
I hate heavy sites probably more than the next guy, but pushing your own standard is the wrong way to go about it, IMO.
They tried that; they're still doing it. But it didn't work, and at this point I think it's naive to think that the mobile web will get much faster purely because Google ranks fast sites higher.
Maybe their failure is not prioritizing it enough in the algorithm. If I look for weather, there are tons of shitty, heavy-js sites. Yet http://myfreeweather.com/ (which still has some JS, but not a ton) is nowhere listed.
The first few pages of sites that google offers me are all terrible choices.
It seems like a sugar-coating over the "use modern HTML and make less bloated pages" pill.
I'm pretty sure that value mostly applies to the Forbes and Techcrunches that have really started suffered from page weight and multiple relayouts after load, not for the individual blogs of hackernews readers.
Given the massive security and privacy flaws of JavaScript, anything that encourages people to leave it enabled is objectively nefarious.
That JavaScript enables privacy and security exploits is neither a position nor an opinion but the truth.
> please acknowledge there are a lot of tech-savvy people who do want a javascript-enabled web.
Sure there are; I have no problem acknowledging it. They, apparently, have a problem acknowledging that they do not value privacy and security as much as they value novelty.
People find zero days in image renderers, how do you justify not disabling image rendering? Your user agent and your browsers supported TLS configs are leaking who you are, how do you justify sending that info to every random web server?
Even just being on hackernews right now proves you are accepting a negative security impact for some novelty value.
Rather more rarely than they do in JavaScript. But that's why lynx, links, elinks, w3m, emacs-w3m, eww & friends are so important!
But yes, if one wishes to render an image, then one must render an imagine. But why would one wish to execute JavaScript, when one only wishes to read text? I've no objection to executing JavaScript when it's required for an app (although I do object to apps which could be more cleanly delivered as pages).
> Your user agent and your browsers supported TLS configs are leaking who you are, how do you justify sending that info to every random web server?
Because it's a requirement to use TLS.
JavaScript is not a requirement to read articles or listicles (which are the vast majority of the pages targeted by AMP); people who demand JavaScript in order to display text and images are breaking the Web, and endangering their users' security and privacy.
I really am curious what the folks who are so eagerly downvoting me are thinking. Are they thinking (i.e., do they have persuasive counterarguments), or are they just feeling (i.e., are they reacting emotionally, without a rational basis)? I genuinely wonder what possible objection they can have to 'that JavaScript enables privacy and security exploits is neither a position nor an opinion but the truth'; AFAICT it's as objectionable as pointing out that the sky is often blue or that fire is hot.
Belittling the contribution of scripting to the web as mere 'novelty' is rather disingenuous. I could list other benefits but I suspect you're already aware of them and discount them because they don't apply to you.
I don't believe that scripting does contribute to the web (i.e., the interlinked web of hypertext documents we all use every day), or at least not enough to be worth the cost. The web is about documents, and documents are eminently readable without scripting (ever since writing was invented and displaced oral tradition …).
The cost does apply to me. Every page which requires me to enable JavaScript (and thus forfeit the security of the computers I do my banking and work on, and forfeit more privacy than that necessary to request a document) costs me. Every page which displays nought but a white page costs me.
I have — as I've noted — no objection to web apps qua web apps. Some of them are quite cool, and some are even useful. It's definitely nice to be able to use Linux and run programs written by people who have never used it. I do wish that browsers implemented a better language than JavaScript (which is an embarrassment to our profession) to that end, but what really gets me is the needless proliferation of apps which are really just document readers. I already have a document reader: it's my web browser.
I remember what the web was like when it was just a bunch of folks writing about things they liked and linking to one another. That was a pretty awesome web. I hate that it has been drowned out by folks who think that in order to read their documents I should give them execute privileges on my workstation.