Chrome and Safari extensions to view AMP versions on the desktop

The timing of Google&#x27;s AMP project is especially interesting considering the recent attention ad blockers have received.<p>By limiting the functionality of pages, AMP makes them load faster, but also allows publishers to include ads. The ads however, can&#x27;t run JavaScript (or Flash) and so should be a lot less obnoxious.<p>There&#x27;s no reason to only use AMP on mobile though - AMP content renders equally well, and fast, on the desktop. These extensions for Safari and Chrome will redirect to AMP URLs for content that has them.

Using this means `ampproject.org` will be able to build a profile of your browsing history to any of the AMP partners&#x27; web sites.<p>I suppose referrer spoofing could help mitigate this, but then I suppose other browser fingerprinting techniques, if any, could counter this. Bottomline, having one server contribute resources to all the pages you visit is a significant threat to privacy.<p>Just using a competent blocker nowadays easily takes care of the page load speed issues -- which is the advertised benefit of AMP.<p>Addendum: basically, if you are already using an extension which purpose is to reduce privacy exposure, installing this extension (DesktopAMP) is self-defeating.

So the AMP project just launched (with apparently unclear benefits and future outlook) and already BBC and BuzzFeed are publishing content using it.<p>Did Google specifically work with them on it? What are they getting from supporting it now? Are they just being paid?

AMP idea sounds good but it does not convince me that it is mandatory to include amp.js via CDN. Why not via bower or other package manager? It it also clear that Google Will push it by giving higher search ranking to sites that implement AMP, and also has a partnership with Google. In fact I am working as a consultant for an italian newspaper and their competitor was contacted by Google to be an early adopter and partner.<p>Aside that it looks ok, and probably I will make my blog AMP compliant.

The README is a bit confusing as to the purpose of the extension until you read the linked site explaining what AMP is: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ampproject.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ampproject.org&#x2F;</a>. This tech post also helps a bit: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ampproject.org&#x2F;how-it-works&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ampproject.org&#x2F;how-it-works&#x2F;</a><p>My first impression is that the whole thing is kind of a gross hack on top of HTML. I get that there&#x27;s a lot of work you don&#x27;t need to do when you do it this way, but this likely won&#x27;t survive long.<p>We have a perfectly good container format called Atom that could have done the job here. Instead of hacking and slashing at HTML, why not define an AMP markup language and well-specify the transformation to HTML?

I don&#x27;t really get AMP. It proposes increasing page load speeds by limiting what content you can add - no JS, custom fonts, etc... is it really that surprising that a page with no JS will load quicker than one with? If I just strip out the JS from my page, why do I need AMP?

Yet another way to rub their native app in my face before I can even get to their web app.

Chrome Web Store reports 0 users have donwloaded the app so far... what a hype.

Can we please stop pretending that this has anything to do with loading pages faster?<p>Stop breaking the web. It&#x27;s stupid. You can try to just shove the ads down someone&#x27;s throat but you&#x27;re in for a surprise, again. Any attempt to force it will actually hurt the advertising. People don&#x27;t hate ads. People hate obnoxious, obtrusive ads that bloat the page to the point of making it completely useless and the whole experience fruitless frustration.<p>Non-obtrusive ads work just fine. I know that for a fact, they pay my bills.