Reply to post: Re: Latency

Good news: Google no longer requires publishers to use the AMP format. Bad news: What replaces it might be worse

PassiveSmoking

Re: Latency

> So because Google is asking for low latency and other metrics it's evil?

No, of course not. But that's not the point of AMP. Reduced latency is just the carrot Google use to sell AMP to otherwise sceptical people, that along with the (recently dropped) SEO benefits.

Google is evil because AMP

a) takes traffic away from the content creator and instead sends it to Google

b) makes it difficult for content creators to make money from any ads that aren't supplied by Google

c) hides where content really comes from which is bad because

i) The people who do the work making the stuff you want to see don't get credit

ii) It lends an air of inappropriate legitimacy to crank sites that push all kinds of BS because the URL has "google" in it instead of "totally-not-a-propaganda-farm.ru"

d) hampers the adoption of open standards that might actually improve the web experience for everybody

e) Allows Google to harvest even more data about you and your browsing habits

f) encourages the creation of pages that fail at accessibility (for example you couldn't pinch-zoom AMP pages for the longest time in mobile browsers, the supposed target market for AMP in the first place)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021