@baldur@toot.cafe
The idea that Google’s interest in replacing the URL might stem from a desire to consolidate AMP honsetly has me quite worried. See sonniesedge.co.uk/posts/amp-urls and adactio.com/links/14316
The mysterious case of missing URLs and Google’s AMP | sonniesedge.co.uk
My reaction to that somewhat sensentionalist Wired article was much the same as Charlie’s—seeing it on the same day at the latest AMP sneakiness has me worried.
The hiding of URLs fits perfectly with AMPs preferred method of making sites fast, which is to host them directly on Google’s servers, and to serve them from a Google domain. Hiding the URL from the user then makes a Google AMP site indistinguishable from an ordinary site.
As well as sharing Charlie’s concern, I also share her hope:
I really hope that the people who are part of Google can stop something awful like this from happening.
Responses
Related links
Why Safari does not need any protection from Chromium – Niels Leenheer
Safari is very opinionated about which features they will support and which they won’t. And that is fine for their browser. But I don’t want the Safari team to choose for all browsers on the iOS platform.
A terrific piece from Niels pushing back on the ridiculous assertion that Apple’s ban on rival rendering engines in iOS is somehow a noble battle against a monopoly (rather than the abuse of monopoly power it actually is). If there were any truth to the idea that Apple’s browser ban is the only thing stopping everyone from switching to Chrome, then nobody would be using Safari on MacOS where users are free to choose whichever rendering engine they want.
The Safari team is capable enough not to let their browser become irrelevant. And Apple has enough money to support the Safari team to take on other browsers. It does not need some artificial App Store rule to protect it from the competition.
WebKit-only proponents are worried about losing control and Google becoming too powerful. And they feel preventing Google from controlling the web is more important than giving more power to users. They believe they are protecting users against themselves. But that is misguided.
Users need to be in control because if you take power away from users, you are creating the future you want to prevent, where one company sets the rules for everybody else. It is just somebody else who is pulling the strings.
Feds may target Google’s Chrome browser for breakup - POLITICO
The unfair collusion between Google AMP and Google Search might just bite ‘em on the ass.
Firefox’s fight for the future of the web | Technology | The Guardian
A good overview of the unfair playing field of web browsers, dominated by the monopolistic practices by Google and Apple.
Mozilla is no longer fighting for market share of its browser: it is fighting for the future of the web.
Plaidophile: So about that AMP-script thing
Reinventing the web the long way around, in a way that gives Google even more control of it. No thanks.
Taking shortcuts ･ Robin Rendle
How Robin really feels about Google AMP:
Here’s my hot take on this: fuck the algorithm, fuck the impressions, and fuck the king. I would rather trade those benefits and burn my website to the ground than be under the boot and heel and of some giant, uncaring corporation.
Related posts
Writing on web.dev
A new free course on responsive web design.
Ends and means
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.