However, having Google load this structured content and host it on its own platform is a terrible idea. Content should remain on the publisher's site. Putting too much content in one place is dangerous for competition.
* In practice there are implementation problems too, e.g. those mentioned in the linked article.
Does that happen? If not, it's somewhat telling.
It is the implementation they chose, and it does have speed benefits. But, an edge cache that allows the end user more control, their own domain, an no hijacking header is possible, and would provide a notable speed benefit. If there were a choice between the two, publishers would likely pick the latter.
So the browser would still be downloading the exact same HTML document (straight from the publisher's server, how you want it) - just then ignoring all the clutter. Compare to AMP, which AFAICT necessitates serving a whole separate version of the page with only the blessed markup... it reminds me of the bad old days, having a separate mobile site instead of a single responsive design for all devices. All seems rather antithetical to that grand ideal of separating structure and presentation.
HTML6 document is a restricted subset, similar to what you suggest. I would still allow complete design flexibility, and I might even allow a subset of JS, but only for presentation purposes. Definitely not turing complete, and no ajax etc.. Probably I wouldn't allow cross-origin resources with credentials. So you could include an image or stylesheet, but the browser would not send along cookies. What I'm aiming for is a replacement for PDF, something you could read on an ebook, etc.. Just a plain document.
On the other hand, I'd have HTML6 app to be able to use the complete web platform.
1. There's the HTML/CSS/JS library/subset that's a good framework for building pages that load quickly
2. There's the 'CDN' that integrates with Google Search to preload and 'iFrame' the site in. Google 'has' to host/'iFrame' the content in their own google.com/amp pages because that's the only way to preload a page to make it display instantly.
We already had this two decades ago: WAP, its contemporaries (i-mode), and its immediate successors (XHTML Mobile Profile).
Google isn't the only party running an AMP cache.
> Content should remain on the publisher's site.
It does. Its also cached by aggregators, and AMP is designed to take advantage of being accessed from a shared cache.
>
They can offer to do a CDN like CloudFlare, but make it optional.
I want to ensure that not a single bit of my data ever runs through Google's infrastructure, while still getting all the same benefits as if it did.
If Google treats sites different just for using an AMP Cache, then I'll have to send another complaint to the EU Antitrust committee.
My pages actually increased their loadtime tenfold when I tried them with AMP — they're tested on a HUAWEI IDEOS X3 on 64kbps GPRS. AMP increases load time to over a minute. (On a modern phone, with a modern connection, my pages are obviously also faster — I'm also testing with a Nexus 5X on 100Mbps 4G)
I can't just massively increase load time for pages just for a better ranking in search results, this shouldn't even be a choice.
Google is using any means possible to keep the web (html, js, css) relevant in the age of native apps (that includes Facebook app running on Android). If the web stays relevant, the same goes for Google search.
You can see a preview for what that means by checking out Wikipedia's traffic decline over the last 3 years or so.
If it was microsoft they already would have shut this down because of the backlash. Google does it and people are fine with it.
Considering we're on the precipice of a global authoritarian-populist cycle, there are non-market consequences to such concentration, too.
WE are on the mercy of few SV companies and whatever they decide or push is our fate.
Only in this weird world of third-party-served-js-ads.
In an ideal world, I wouldn't care about where my content is served from. I just care 1) that many people see it, and if it is commercial 2) that I get money for it. I could just add some ads as inline to my article, served in the same way as my article's illustrations are. Not sure google allows that, though. Wouldn't surprize me if not.
In theory, it's a win-win-win situation. Publisher gets free hosting (with analytics and ad money still coming to them obviously), users get a faster experience and Google is happier if the users browser more content.
In reality, AMP is obviously not perfect but they have been addressing common issues and improving. I may not be fully sold on it yet, but I don't understand the massive blind hatred.
Saying "people can just optimize their website" doesn't mean shit. They've had years and no one has been. Sites have been getting slower every year despite browsers getting faster. No one gave a single shit until AMP came around...
But instead of simply pushing that aspect harder, they're actively promoting their own tech.
They do.
The other thing is that for me, AMP has not been faster many times. I know they're working on it but having to download and run 100KB of external JavaScript before rendering frequently meant that it was slower than the real page. It helps the stragglers but e.g. WaPo or NYT load just as fast and that should be enough.
With real web pages, the native sharing UI just works as it does everywhere else.
With AMP, you have to know to tap a different unfamiliar icon and then know that the unstyled URL displayed is actually a link you can interact with. That means that sharing goes from one tap to 2-3 and that's after people learn that Google gives substandard results doing what they're familiar with and so you need to remember to do something else only for pages which you found on Google.
An AMP page served without cache has to be treated the same, or this becomed exactly the freedom issue that this entire discussion is about.
My pages are actually optimized a lot, and they actually get about 10x slower with AMP than without.
I don't want to have to choose between fast loading and good SEO, I want both. And Google only offering good SEO to those who let Google track all user interactions with their page is also not ideal (I specifically do not use any ads, analytics, or tracking, not even storing IPs in the server logs).
If your server supports HTTP/2 and has a connection with a good bandwith then static resources can be loaded really fast without any CDN because all the resources can be loaded in parallel without waiting in a queue.
The real motivation for publishers to implement AMP is that they hope to get better position in search results.
Edit: Disagree? What part isn't true?
An edge cache of an optimized page is plenty fast without preload. Images, in fact, can be preloaded cross domain if that is really needed.
You know it's a mess when the New York Times has to inject a "sorry this video doesn't work on AMP pages, visit our site" message on stories.
Publishers are free to implement their own cache and host their own content. AMP is open source and they can modify it however they like.
https://www.wired.com/2016/02/googles-amp-speeding-web-chang...
"…but there’s a big catch: if readers decide to share a link to an AMP page they’ve clicked on through a Google search, the link points to Google.com (for example, google.com/amp/yoursite.com/yourpage/amp), not to your site. A Google spokesperson confirms that there isn’t a way to both have your AMP-optimized appear in Google’s prioritized search listings without having that content hosted on Google’s AMP Cache servers."
1. You can (and must) host AMP content on servers of your own choosing.
2. Google's crawlers ingest your AMP content, validate it, and re-host it in Google's AMP Cache. Bing and other folks run similar crawlers and caches.
3. Google search results will only link to AMP content on Google's own cache.
So yes, you can host your content on your own servers. And you can give people direct URLs to that content. But Google users will only ever see links to the copy of your content that Google hosts; your servers never see that traffic.
There is no way to opt-out and still be considered a valid AMP page.
Disclaimer: I work for Google and have some involvement with AMP.
The worse case I've seen is a site in which every page crashed Mobile Safari without fail regardless of which version you ask for. It was eventually fixed but I never figured out why. If the sites are just running some script without checking then the admins have failed their line of duty.
I'm just going to file another complaint to the EU Antitrust committee otherwise, as this is a simple and clear violation. (Although I doubt my own complaint would be very relevant — all large publishers already have filed such complaints, and Google will be fined for it).
My pages actually increased their loadtime tenfold when I tried them with AMP — they're tested on a HUAWEI IDEOS X3 on 64kbps GPRS. AMP increases load time to over a minute. (On a modern phone, with a modern connection, my pages are obviously also faster — I'm also testing with a Nexus 5X on 100Mbps 4G)
I have the choice between a massively worse user experience, or worse search ranking. And that's a choice that's just not acceptable to me.