Hacker News Reader

Comment by dingo_bat | Hacker News Reader

So basically this guy says all of the issues are by design and you can choose not to use amp if you don't like all of it. Google isn't going to penalize non amp pages in search ranking. They are just going to not show your page in the carousel.

I think it's a pretty fair position to take. If you don't like amp don't use it. We'll see if amp catches on over a period of time.

View on HN

Yes, accept our platform, design choices, and navigation framing or we won't put you in a competitive position with other search results. While AMP isn't a ranking factor (Google has stated this) AMP results are displayed more prominently. Arm twisting at it's finest.

Even if AMP isn't a ranking factor, clickthrough rates may be. If users click more on AMP links, then by improving CTR it could also indirectly improve ranking.

"Gosh, I mean, you have a right to sell oil, sure, but maybe if you play by our rules, you'll have an easier time shipping it on the rail networks we own." It's plainly Standard Oil-style monopoly behavior from Google here.

It seems more like UPS saying "hey, we'll ship whatever you want (within reason) but if you can fit it in one of our standard box sizes it'll get there faster and cheaper". What is the ulterior motive or side benefit Google gets from people adopting AMP? Honest question.

The problem is that if you don't play by their "standard box" rules, you may not end up in the truck at all.

The users browsing the AMP results may never feel compelled to scroll down to see non AMP results.

So a publisher's choice isn't: "standard size for faster delivery", it's: "use AMP or receive less traffic than you're currently receiving"

AMP articles keeps users browsing within Google's properties, with Google's tracking and ads. Non-AMP news pages are an exit out of Google's sphere, where users will get non-Google tracking and ads.

That said, I find myself clicking AMP articles 5x more than non-AMP news links because I know the AMP articles will be fast and clean.

It's using the same libraries and third party pixels as publishers were before.

Them becoming a "platform" where don't just link to content but can actively host, curate and present it.

> monopoly

I'm still surprised so many people here are using google and not duckduckgo. I use the duck all day long. I used to revert to google when I couldn't find when I want, but I've found in the last six months, if it's not on ddg, it's not going to be on google, either!

We don't have to support google. Let's just stop giving them everything for free. People sneer at using Yahoo for mail, but what is the problem, really? It's almost all aesthetic.

Why give away our power and beg google to throw away profit and treat us right?

Persuade your friends to use other email and search providers. Design your websites so they have Links sections your visitors can navigate instead of going back to google. That's what I do and it works.

Amp isn't ideal, but neither is Instant Articles on Facebook.

I'm hoping that Amp is really just Google training publishers how to make web pages that aren't terrible for users.

Instant articles is even worse, IMO. But Facebook is not pretending it's the next version of the Web. Google is, so they set up an expectation of Web like behaviors.

internet.org?

So what would you have done if you were in charge at Google?

At the time Amp was announced, Facebook's Instant Articles was really taking off. It was by far the best place to read news online and arguably still is.

To get a similar experience outside of Facebook (before Amp) you had to use an ad blocker. Right around that time, Apple added support for ad blocking in iOS and suddenly ad supported content outside of Facebook was looking unsustainable.

> So what would you have done if you were in charge at Google?

File an antitrust complaint against Facebook, sue Facebook, and get a warrant to get Instant Articles instantly shut down?

> suddenly ad supported content outside of Facebook was looking unsustainable

And just pivot regarding that?

well, AMP is open source. Instant Articles is not.

AMP works on many platforms, Bing just announced support of AMP.

So, what's the big deal?

Instant Articles is just RSS, isn't it? How is it less open than Amp?

And then you have companies like Buzzfeed that have said "Ok, the deal has changed. We're ok with the new terms." and go hog wild changing their business model to adapt to the new reality.

It is truly fascinating to watch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com