Hacker News Reader

Comment by petepete | Hacker News Reader

The idea of moving en masse to a technology that's controlled by a single company just doesn't sit right.

Can't companies host and control their own version of AMP?

They can, but don't get credit for it in Google's page rank. Which to me makes the whole complaint sound dishonest. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

>don't get credit for it in Google's page rank

How do you know that? There are very few people in the world who can claim that with evidence.

I haven't tested it but google shows a lighting bolt next to amp sites so maybe the custom amp websites dont get the bolt.

That should be easy to test, given that cloudflare hosts a top-level AMP cache. Just check if a cloudflare-cached website gets the bolt.

They do get the bolt.

This isn't true. Example:

- Miami herald rolls their own amp pages: http://amp.miamiherald.com/news/business/article135187364.ht...

- Here's the icon in search for the same page: https://i.imgur.com/43Hk7tV.png

From what I understand, google bots detect the amp standard and flag it with the amp tag for mobile search results.

They host their own pages using AMP, but they still are forced to use the one centralized JS file implementing AMP.

The point was that even if websites host their own AMP standard, they still get the AMP icon in mobile search results.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about using js files.

What do you mean by "their own AMP standard" then? I thought that meant a customized version of the AMP elements/framework.

Isn't this what Google is essentially trying to achieve? Email, video streaming, advertising, etc...

Buy a 5$/month Protonmail account and forward your gmail to it, and slowly migrate all of your various email-authenticated services to point to your protonmail account. Plus Protonmail makes it very easy to run email from a domain that you already own, like your portfolio domain.

Are you actually willing to pay for an email provider that don't support SMTP and IMAP?

It's baffling that people are willing to pay for another walled garden.

IDK about Protomail, but Fastmail of course supports these protocols. Happy customer here, as are more than a handful of HNers.

Reply to sibling: Why would anyone call an email provider a walled garden, especially if using your own domain name?!

I pay for Fastmail and I don't even use them (waiting for multi label support) just to ensure they remain an option when they support the feature I need to move away from Google.

Switching from labels to folders has been painful as part of the FastMail transition, but I'm largely glad I made the change. Now my mail is standards-compliant and I don't have to deal with all sorts of crud when I have third party mail clients that don't support Gmail's custom stuff.

I know FastMail is working on JMAP, which ideally will be a new standard that supports labels, but if it takes off, it'll be a number of years before labels is something you can assume a given mail client will support. I use platforms that rarely have official app support (aka, not iOS or Android), so wide standards compliance is a big key.

Legitimate concern.

Yes, because at least then it's obvious how they make money.

For everything else (docs, hangouts, calendar etc.) simply host your own nextcloud. You can also go one step further and run a searx instance and you wont even have to rely on Google search (well, still kind of) anymore.

You can also host your own inbound mail, and use gmail for sending. You can add your personal domain email as a "send mail as" entry on gmail, and configure your personal email to use Google's smtp servers. That way you avoid issues with your domain's IP not being trusted by other mail servers.

Consider that only the biggest and largest companies can meet all of google's expectations.

Single person websites wont be able to compete.

This means 'for profit' websites rather than free blogs take priority.

This sounds like how Facebook killed their brand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com