AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages) is generally reviled in the tech community. Highly critical pieces have topped Hacker News a number of times over the past couple of months. That Register piece ends with the declaration “If we reject AMP, AMP dies.“, which you can ironically read in AMP form.
The complaint is that AMP undermines or kills the web. A lesser complaint that it has poor usability (though not all criticism has held up).
Web Developers Can’t Stop Themselves
Everyone can leverage AMP, whether producer or consumer. Bing already makes use of AMP in some capacity, as can any other indexer or caching tier. AMP, if available, is publicly announced on the source page (via a link rel=”amphtml” tag) and available to all, versus the other formats that are fed directly into a silo. A quick survey of the Hacker News front page found almost half of the entries had AMP available variants, made possible given that exposing AMP is often nothing more than a simple plug-in on your content management system (and would be a trivial programming task even on a greenfield project).
The impetus for these varied formats is the harsh reality that the web has been abused, and is flexible to the point of immolation. This is especially prevalent on mobile where users are less likely to have content blockers or the ability to easily identify and penalize abusive behaviors.
In an ideal world web properties would refrain from such tragedy of the commons behaviors, worried about offending users and on their best behavior. The prevalent usage doesn’t motivate that, however: many simply see whatever tops Hacker News or Reddit or trending on Facebook and jump in and out of content sources, each site having incredibly little stickiness. The individual benefit of good behavior for any particular site declines.
Bad behavior worsens. Users become even less a check on practices. The good emergent sites suffer, everyone sticking to a tiny selection of sites that they visit daily. It parallels the Windows software download market where once we freely adopted whatever was new and interesting, but after pages of toolbars and daemons and malware many just install the basics and take no risks, new entrants finding no market for their efforts.
AMP (and the other options) is the natural outcome of the wild web. It represents padded walls that constrains bad behavior, giving the content priority. It isn’t appropriate for rich web apps, or even marginally interactive pieces like my bit on floating point numbers, but for the vast majority of media it is a suitable compromise, representing an excellent compromise of the power of HTML with the constraint to yield a speedily rendering, low resource utilization solution. Most AMP pages rendering extraordinarily quickly, with absolutely minimal CPU and network usage. Yes, sites could just optimize their content without being forced to, but somehow we’ve been moving in exactly the opposite direction for years. A simple cooperative effort will never be fruitful.
Google thus far has stated that they do not prioritize AMP content in search results, and given how fervently the SEO industry watches their rankings this isn’t as cloaked as one might imagine. They do, however, have a news carousel for trending topics (e.g. “news”), and most if not all of those entries in the carousel are AMP pages on mobile.
The news carousel has merited significant criticism. For instance a given carousel has a selection of items on a trending topic (e.g. Trump), and swiping within one of the articles brings you to the next in the carousel. As a user, this is fantastic. As a publisher, it’s an attack on non-consumption, easily giving users a trustworthy, speed mechanism of consuming their content (and seeing their ads and their branding, etc).
Other criticism is more subtle. For instance all AMP pages load a script at https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js, which of course is served up by a surrogate of Google. This script has private caching and is mandated by the spec, and is utilized for metrics/tracking purposes. Ideally this script would be long cached, but currently it is held for just 50 minutes. If a browser were leveraging AMP it could theoretically keep a local copy for all AMP content, disregarding the caching rules.
And most criticisms are just entirely baseless. Claims that it renders content homogeneous and brand-less, for instance, yet each site can drop a header with a link to their site, as always, just as they always could. For instance The Register does in the initially linked piece, with a logo and link to the homepage. And then there’s simple user confusion, like the blogger who claimed that Google was “stealing” his traffic after he enabled AMP and discovered that yes, AMP implies allowing caching.
The root of most toxicity on online conversation boards is a lack of charity: Assuming that everyone who disagrees or does something different is an idiot, malicious, has ill intent or is a part of a conspiracy, etc. I could broaden that out and say that the root of most toxicity throughout humanity comes from the same source. If people realized that others just made mistakes when they made a dumb move on the roadway — the foibles of humanity — instead of taking it as a personal affront that must be righted, we’d all have less stressful lives.
This applies to what businesses do as well. We can watch moves like AMP and see only the negatives, and only malicious, ad-serving intentions, or we can see possible positive motives that could potentially benefit the web. Google has developed AMP openly and clearly, and has been responsive to criticism, and the current result is something that many users, I suspect, strongly benefit from.
I’d take this even further and say that the model should be carried to a “HTML Lite” that rolls back the enormous flexibility of HTML5 to a content-serving subset, much like AMP but geared for the desktop or other rich clients. If we could browse in HTML Lite on the majority of sites, enabling richness only for those few that make a credible case, it would be fantastic for the web at large.