You really should get an AOL subscription. If you ask nicely they just might let you use the 1994 edition which did pretty much all that you describe. And then we got the web.
Exactly the level of discourse that HN is capable of having regarding AMP. Congratulations.
The greatest lie in this discussion is the farcical notion that it's "AMP vs the Full Web", as if those are the only options. It's facile sophistry, but if it's anti-AMP it's all good here.
Really, AMP is a step back and something that solves entirely the wrong problem, and coincidentally continues the trend of Google pulling ever more content into its own eco-system to get to the point where you hopefully will not leave Google any more during the course of a browsing session.
If you feel that's good then I really don't know what arguments would make you see that this is the opposite of where we should be headed, all this vertical integration on the web serves nobody except for the few largest players. If the frog doesn't jump out of the pot while it still can then that's a point against the frog.
As a user, I like AMP. I don't work for Google and have zero investment in whether AMP succeeds or fails. But I'm capable of rationally discussing it without ridiculous FUD or pejorative noise, which so many of you aren't.
If you feel that's good then I really don't know what arguments would make you see
Of course. Allude to the greater knowledge that the ignorant fool just doesn't get. 2 for 2 now.
> But I'm capable of rationally discussing it without ridiculous FUD or pejorative noise, which so many of you aren't.
Well, since you are commenting across many threads in the same vein I don't see what gives you the moral high ground on this.
You as a user like AMP, but what's good for you as a user may very well be detrimental to the web and your personal temporary inconvenience need not have taken a backseat to 'the greater good' if Google had simply increased the penalty for web bloat.
That's what I'm getting at when I say that AMP is solving the wrong problem, or if it is solving the right problem that it is solving it in the wrong way.
This is just Google replacing one kind of bloat with another and we need neither. It is also a fantastic example of how a near monopoly position can be abused to extend your grip on other markets.
Whether you work for Google or not doesn't interest me one bit, what I wonder about is if you do not remember the past where we had all these systems that wouldn't talk to each other and where a few very large players dictated what the rest of us should do.
Google is outright coercing content owners to support AMP 'or else' and that's just not the web that I want to see. Giving Google a free pass here means that other players will take it as a sign that the time is ripe for the next land-grab and then we will all - including you - suffer.
My web properties will never support AMP, they're not bloated to begin with and whatever penalties Google assigns to them are proof positive that this never was about bloat.
