Honestly at this point, if you trust google you’re a fool. It’s demonstrated itself to be unreliable, capricious, and absolutely willing to break the law if it thinks it can get away with it. Do business with them if you absolutely must, but under no circumstance should you actually trust them.
It was clear that Google had turned to the dark side when Eric Schmidt first spoke at the Search Engine Strategies conference in 2006. Until then, SEO was the enemy. Google and Yahoo had previously sponsored a conference in 2005 on squashing search engine spam.<p>What's new is that Google has now managed to alienate ad-supported publishers, their paying customers, as well.
I don't like AMP, but I like this headline less. That is classic media trolling. They don't know what "publishers" actually feel about Google and there is no evidence than anything is "irreparably broken". It is actually remarkable how quickly businesses forgive and forget.
If they are really displeased with Google, and I'm sure they are, they should run a campaign to invite users of their sites to install a browser different than Chrome. If they manage to destroy Google's quasi monopoly on the browser they'll make Google less powerful overall.
I remember EULALing my privacy away because Chrome was fast and freaking awesome. Now I have to block AMP links. I was once naive, now I'm more willing to deal with firefox
>what he identified as Google’s “vision for the web’s future and examples of best-in-class web experiences.”<p>I'm not sure Google should be the only one to decide the web's future.<p>Since they quasi monopolized the browser, they act like they own the web.
As someone mentioned directly in this blog post I can tell you where I came from with the event at least. Trust. Making sure developers know what we're working and why we think it's important and when we can show everyone the data to back up our rationale. I think we still have a long way to go, but it's something I've always strived for my team (devrel) to do.<p>I felt that it was important to ask these questions on the AMA (there was a fair few in the sli.do in other areas around trust) that centered around all the different pieces of work we do but also knowing that we're not the AMP team we can only answer with our perspective - we try to do everything in the open and developers should rightly judge us on how well we do. I do encourage people to check out the blink process as a place to keep a check on what we are thinking about.
As a former Googler responsible for some of its first developer products, this AMP story has been really disappointing. If the allegations are true, what an embarrassment. Imagine making your career out of promoting AMP to developers and lying to them. Imagine being the engineer who inserted the one second delay for non-AMP ads.<p>(I left Google many years before AMP was ever a thing, so no inside knowledge.)
As for "irreparably damaging trust," better late than never! It was pretty obvious from the beginning that AMP was going to be an anti-competitive piece of shit. (Though throttling non-AMP ads might be a bit more brazen than I personally expected.)
Haha, this is nonsense, they will continue to ride every initiative Google come up with as it’s almost certain to increase revenues or at least not decrease them compared to participating competition!
This seems like a false headline. The article doesn’t point to a single publisher who says they’ve lost trust in Google-led initiatives. They quote some software devs with anti-Google takes, but the only actual publisher they talked to doesn’t seem to have an issue.
This sounds like it was carefully crafted by a lawyer:<p><i>“We received no funds from Google for the project,” a spokesperson for Automattic said when asked if the company was compensated as a partner in this effort.</i><p>There are ways to be compensated without receiving funds.
>Announcements and discussions on hot topics impacting the greater web community at the event included Google’s Privacy Sandbox initiative, improvements to Core Web Vitals and performance tools, and new APIs for Progressive Web Apps (PWAs).<p>Stop trying to make PWAs happen. It's not going to happen.
As much as I despise Google and AMP, the one upside to AMP was it allowed you access to almost every online news article that was behind a payroll. You could just Google the title of a paywalled article, click on the AMP version, and view the whole thing.
Publishers should never have trusted Google in the first place, seeing how they're feeding from the same pie, and Google wants more of that pie. That's like trusting the Green River killer with a brothel. Even if nothing happens right away, eventually you'll regret it.
The author seems to not understand AMP at all. AMP ads on AMP pages get to render instantly because they are prerendered and only trigger impressions when they are viewed. Non-AMP pages aren't prerendered because they would count as an impression even if they aren't viewed. You could call that a "nice comparative boost," but there is nothing sinister about that. <a href="https://amp.dev/about/ads/" rel="nofollow">https://amp.dev/about/ads/</a><p>I don't even work on the web professionally, and even I can figure this stuff out. It's really not that hard.