>So Google's suggestion is that, if you've already chosen to offer an AMP page, that page shouldn't have intentionally worse usability than the original?
Google is using its dominance in search (again) to force sites to offer AMP versions. Like a "reader view", and lacking evidence at the moment, I bet many sites are building AMP versions with faster load times but reduced features to comply. Now Google is saying "Build your entire site according to our spec, or we'll de-rank you on search".
That is a very bold move, and one that would be making front-page news if they said it straight-up in a way that Buzzfeed could write about.
I, personally, hate websites that serve different content based on what device I'm using. It makes it difficult to customize a device to view things the way I want to view them. All of the changes to navigation and features makes it difficult to navigate and use the site.
I do think there could be a case made for Google abusing their power here but frankly I'm on their side for this: one site, one representation.
If you want a lighter load for mobile users, provide a lighter version for every user. If you want to keep features available, allow users to opt-in or out to such features.
I agree it's not ideal to have different experiences. But this wouldn't be true if Google didn't start imposing AMP through their influence. This has been an elaborate attempt to push everyone into a requirements system so that they can control how websites are built. Like an app store policy for websites. That's bad news, because their influence is real, businesses rely on search traffic to exist, and will have no choice but to comply.
I think there should be more regulation around such a large gatekeeper. It's a bad state of affairs where small businesses are beholden to one opaque company. Even more worrying if the small company offers a competitive product to one of Google/Alphabet's.
I think you're ignoring the capabilities and UX that desktop can provide vs. mobile. You're essentially asking for what Ubuntu did with Unity and GNOME with... well, GNOME, in that they're shoehorning a mobile/touch UX into a desktop. That isn't always the way to go.
I mean, an even worse example of that would be Windows 8. Metro everywhere was a colossal failure. Hence the dialing back for Windows 10.
There's nothing wrong with having different mobile and desktop experiences. Just make sure they have feature parity and behave in similar, expected ways.
> I do think there could be a case made for Google abusing their power here
Which is the concern here. Abuse of power in order to push your own agenda could just as easily turn into abuse of power to push an agenda you despise.
I don't think that's a good idea. "Mobile first" doesn't mean "mobile everywhere". You can use umatrix and stylus Firefox extensions to eliminate most page bloat. Firefox's reader view can give the same look to each page if that's what you want.
Destroying the open WWW for the purpose of making all websites look the same on all devices doesn't seem like a good justification.
Well, I am. We got "responsive design" when we need it least: the moment we have mobile devices capable to display desktop pages just fine, large screen, and tap to zoom-in/out to any area of interest...
Yes. Moving content around when I resize my window is the opposite of functional. I don't get more screen real estate so websites can have bigger and more fancy text or pictures. I get more screen real estate because I keep things small and the screen full of information; high information density. I resize things often as they get moved around on my screen and resizing the window will move elements around nearly every time. It's the same any time screen rotation is enabled: accidentally tilt or partially rotate the device and then everything resizes and moves around. It's very jarring.
There's also the sites that take control of my keys so I can't use them to navigate; or those that disable operating system features such as copy and paste. Both of those are the opposite of useful.
If you want more trust: build and sign a native application, and don't be overly generous on the permissions you request. There's no reason a message app needs audio permission until the moment I intentionally start or join a voice conversation. Same for the camera. Same for saving data to the local disk, too, really. There's definitely no reason you should need administrator permission. And that permission should be revoked when the conversation is done.
Not at all. They are using their dominance to surface websites which provide a faster (and therefore better) experience to users. AMP happens to facilitate that, but if you're able to create a website that loads just as fast without AMP, it will probably rank just as high. I have yet to see proof that any AMP itself (beyond the benefits) is used as a factor to rank results.
Sadly, the reality is that the majority don't want to make the effort.
Just searched for "Trump". Every single carousel entry was an AMP page. So then I tried "Isis", "confirmation hearing", and "Angela Merkle". Same thing, 100% AMP in the carousel.
This is on an Android phone, using Chrome, with a US ip.
How does that show AMP is required, and not just that almost every major media site has chosen to serve AMP pages? I legitimately can't find a large media site that doesn't use AMP, so your observation is essentially meaningless. You're looking for a news site that doesn't use AMP (already extremely rare), makes their pages as fast as AMP pages, and is blocked from appearing in the carousel.
>I have yet to see proof that any AMP itself (beyond the benefits) is used as a factor to rank results
The "benefits" shouldn't be used as a factor to rank results either.
I want the best page content-wise for my search. Not the fastest to load with irrelevant results.
Besides what kind of "proof" do you expect to see? All their rankings are hidden behind several layers of secrecy, and it's not like Google will come out and say it by themselves.
Web search is a public resource at this point, and Google is percentage-wise a monopoly on it, so we should dispense with opaque algorithms and behind the scenes manipulations.
It's bad for society and bad for democracy.
They should be forced to be able to explain any ranking, and give their algorithm at any point in time.
Google is using its dominance in search (again) to force sites to offer AMP versions. Like a "reader view", and lacking evidence at the moment, I bet many sites are building AMP versions with faster load times but reduced features to comply. Now Google is saying "Build your entire site according to our spec, or we'll de-rank you on search".
That is a very bold move, and one that would be making front-page news if they said it straight-up in a way that Buzzfeed could write about.