iOS 11 Safari will automatically strip AMP links from shared URLs

TL of AMP here. Just wanted to clarify that we specifically requested Apple (and other browser vendors) to do this. AMP&#x27;s policy states that platforms should share the canonical URL of an article whenever technically possible. This browser change makes it technically possible in Safari. We cannot wait for other vendors to implement.<p>It appears Safari implemented a special case. We&#x27;d prefer a more generic solution where browsers would share the canonical link by default, but this works for us.

I hope the next step is a way to strip AMP links from all URLs, backfilling the &quot;Disable AMP&quot; setting that Google ought to have provided.<p>AMP has always worked poorly on iOS: it has different scrolling, it breaks reader mode, and it breaks status bar autohide and jump-to-top. Perhaps Apple would be less hostile to AMP if the implementation were better.

Thank heavens. Google&#x27;s efforts to &#x27;improve&#x27; the web have been disastrous. Like turning every list of facts into a pointless ramble because Google needs 1000 words of &#x27;rich content&#x27;. And Amp being a push to hobble pages by making them into a proprietary cache format instead of encouraging simpler HTML.

I don&#x27;t know much about the implementation details of AMP. But my perspective as an end user is that it&#x27;s pretty great. Non-amp pages tend to take multiple seconds to get interactive, and then the content jumps around as images and ads and fonts load. AMP tends to be usable in under half a second.

Here&#x27;s my AMP experience on Reddit:<p>1) Click the AMP link in Google 2) See half the reddit thread comments, since AMP is a cached older version, I then need to click &quot;View full comments&quot; which gets me to the mobile reddit link I wanted in the first place<p>3) For some reason, links in AMP reddit dont let you open in a new window -- which I often want to do when reading comments inline and see someone post a link in a comment. Frustrating.<p>AMP cost me more time and effort than having just gone to the non-AMP link directly.

Just to make sure I&#x27;m following this myself: this isn&#x27;t about disabling AMP, it&#x27;s about making sure that URLs that you send to other applications or the clipboard from Safari will be the true URLs of the original web page, not AMP URLs. Right? That&#x27;s the only way I can read &quot;strip AMP links from shared URLs,&quot; but a lot of comments here are piling on to AMP itself. Which I understand (I don&#x27;t like it for a lot of the reasons already brought up here, both in terms of philosophy and usability), but I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;s what we&#x27;re actually talking about.

People in this thread seem to be overreacting like my immune system on strawberries....<p>Apple isn&#x27;t taking up the good fight against AMP. They&#x27;re simply removing it from URLs when those are shared via the build-in &quot;share&quot; functionality.<p>99% of interactions with AMP pages will see no impact. It seems like it should be uncontroversial that it is preferable to use the canonical non-AMP URI when sharing, so as to invoke content-negotiation between that page and the devise of whoever clicks on the shared link.

It might be simply because Safari respect <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Canonical_link_element" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Canonical_link_element</a><p><pre><code> &lt;link rel=&quot;canonical&quot; href=&quot;http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cnn.com&#x2F;2017&#x2F;08&#x2F;23&#x2F;politics&#x2F;trumps-ire-at-aides-advice&#x2F;index.html&quot;&gt; </code></pre> EDIT: correct HTML element &lt;link rel=&quot;canonical&quot;&gt;

I detest AMP and everything it stands for. I&#x27;d like to see this in Firefox.

I wish it had an option to simply strip AMP in all circumstances. I quite often copy &amp; paste URLs into e-mails, for example. It&#x27;s irksome to have to request the desktop version just to get the proper domain and URL.

I absolutely support this move, I&#x27;ve been trying to rid myself of AMP since it was released and this at least stops me from having to clean up URLs when sharing them.

I guess I am the only person who appreciates AMP. I really love the abbreviated version of things, without all the extra crap that has to load over the wire to render what amounts to a few paragraphs I&#x27;d like to read.

Hopefully Apple fighting AMP makes it a non-starter going forward now since it isn&#x27;t reaching lucrative iOS users.

Anyone else think that the EU is going to file an antitrust suit against Google over AMP? Seems possible given their lack of hesitance in the past.

Accelerated Mobile Pages, for those who are curious.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ampproject.org" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ampproject.org</a>

I got so sick of AMP links I switched to Bing as default. Compared to google is sucks, but still better than dealing with AMP pages. When I have to, I use <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;encrypted.google.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;encrypted.google.com</a> which is currently AMP free.<p>I would switch back immediately, if I could disable AMP on my google account.

Hopefully it&#x27;ll fix some of the issues with getting redirected on desktops when people share links here&#x2F;on reddit

My understanding is that AMP pages load a cached version of the content inside a nested iframe. Doesn&#x27;t this break browser extensions&#x2F;bookmarklets that rely on processing the current HTML on the loaded page? Stuff like Instapaper or Pocket, for example?

AMP reminds me of AOL&#x27;s web browser back in the day and possibly Facebook today, directing everything through their network and controlling the experience.<p>AOL used to break lots of sites&#x2F;graphics&#x2F;scripts which noone would put up with today, AMP just makes you use and run everything through Google or else. This is a move to control more of the web through a walled garden and goes against the distributed nature of the web.<p>The one thing that AMP may be beneficial for is archival purposes, preserving content past when another source may keep it. However, knowing Google products and how they are killed off like George R.R. Martin characters, no hope for that.

AMP is horrible and should just be buried.

Here is how Safari could fix the mobile web in a matter of weeks:<p>1. If a site downloads more than 100K, halt the page load or display a &quot;too much data&quot; error.<p>2. If a site takes more than 1 second to render, halt the page load or display a &quot;too long to load&quot; error.<p>Do that for a few days and maybe these absurd sites would lose enough views that they might actually bother to figure out where their data is going.<p>I recently had to browse with &quot;data roaming&quot; at the low low price of $2.05 per MEGAbyte and had to disable pretty much everything on my phone within minutes.

I only wish there was a way to automatically have those pesky t.co links resolved when sharing.<p>I don&#x27;t use Twitter, but other people do, and when they share a link to me I&#x27;d like to be able to 1) see what I am clicking on, and 2) avoid sending analytics information to Twitter when I do so.

I love Apple the most when they throw their weight around for the benefit of the end user. It&#x27;s pretty clear that Google&#x27;s main concern is ads ads ads.<p>Apple already has my money, they focus 110% on making my life easier and their products fantastic. Go Apple!

Would be great if it got rid of twitter shortened urls and other similar walled-garden cruft.

Must&#x27;ve resulted from this: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;tim_cook&#x2F;status&#x2F;851111291229847552" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;tim_cook&#x2F;status&#x2F;851111291229847552</a>

Thank goodness<p>On a related note, anyone know an extension for desktop Chrome that converts AMP pages to non-AMP pages? Or is that not programmatically possible?

Nice, I do this manually right now.

Yes! Yes! 100 times yes! Thank you Apple!!<p>I hate that amp crap! It&#x27;s the main reason for moving to ddg.

Haha. Apple officially thinks Google is a nuisance with news sites, like Adobe with Flash.

Hurray!!

wtf is Amp?

Don&#x27;t think Apple will accept any amount of billions from Google to let AMP pass through.

Good on Apple for standing up to Google. This is great for an open web.

If your content is valuable, why would you convert it into a Google format, upload it to Google servers, and allow them to serve it wrapped in a Google page?<p>Google should appreciate the ad revenue from linking to your valuable content. Don&#x27;t give Google more control over your content.

A lot of people are going to &quot;cheer&quot; this move but this is yet another anti-web move that Apple has made without regard to standards or how it will affect other areas of tech. Apple has a clear record of flouting standardized technologies in Safari like breaking iframe sizing in iOS mobile and not supporting many common APIs and is very opaque about whether or not they even view the web as a first class citizen. The code I work on almost has as many Safari hacks as we have IE hacks.<p>If Apple would stick to just making great hardware and products and follow the standards like other vendors do then I feel like the whole tech world would be better off.<p>Edit: Apparently I need to spell out in more detail my arguments because if read at surface level people only focus on AMP. This isn&#x27;t about AMP. This is about sharing a link to something you are viewing. You are currently viewing the AMP page and that might look a certain way or even contain a certain type of graph that looks a certain way because it&#x27;s static and fast to load. If you click Share and send this to a friend they will receive an entirely different page that might look different than what you were seeing. I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s a good thing that we can no longer trust sharing a page with someone else. Now the ultimate destination is being edited behind the scenes without you knowing. It&#x27;s a slippery slope that, like other things Apple has done, have possibly bad consequences in the future. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions after all.