Google Moving AMP Project to Open Governance Model

[engine]

Google's Accelerated Mobile Pages Project (AMP) is moving to a consensus-seeking open governance model.

Joining the Advisory Committee at the outset include representatives from publishers (El País, Washington Post and Terra), e-commerce sites (AliExpress and eBay) and platforms (Cloudflare and Automattic) as well as advocates for an open web (Léonie Watson of The Paciello Group, Nicole Sullivan of Google/Chrome, and Terence Eden).

No doubt this is a decision taken, in part, because of the criticism it received over what appeared to be google's way of controlling the format.

[amphtml.wordpress.com...]

[JS_Harris]

Google may simply be shedding another project they don't want to be responsible for long term but it makes sense to hand it off instead of shut it down. Amp implementation crested a while back didn't it?

[KaseyM]

Great. Now kill it. Stifles what websites can achieve by offering a lesser experience and cuts CPM's down to barebones while it's at it.

[Leosghost]

Couple of relevant links with insights concerning amp ..
[polemicdigital.com...]
[ferdychristant.com...]

[NickMNS]

@Leosghost there is no insight in those articles, simply misinformed rants by people that do not have any understanding of the intricacies of AMP.

If there is one criticism to make is that Google makes AMP out to be a simple solution that is easy to implement. But the reality is that an AMP implementation is a complex endeavor with many moving parts that requires deep understanding of AMP and all the parts that come into contact with it. It is impossible to imagine that Joe Average webmaster that publish a site through Word Press or some other black box solution would be able understand and implement AMP in any useful manner. Surprise!, install plugin, run does not produce the desired effect.

Complexity scares people, so yes maybe the days of AMP are numbered.

@KaseyM

and cuts CPM's down to barebones while it's at it.

I am not sure that this is really accurate. I do see lower RPM for ads appearing on AMP pages. I suspect that one is seeing a biased metric. In my case the AMP pages are nearly always the landing pages (this should be the case in most situations unless one has an AMP only website), from those pages the users go on to non-amp versions of the pages. I suspect, but have no way of verifying, that landing pages have a lower CTR. Thus if you collect data from only landing pages the RPM will likely be lower. So to make a fair comparison one would need to compare AMP landing page RPM to non-AMP landing page RPM in which case I would guess that AMP RPM would be equal or similar to non-AMP RPM.

[Leosghost]

Plenty of insight and facts there, not rants, but then they are not beholden to Google for their incomes via adsense, so they can be impartial..

[NickMNS]

Sorry you right those are very well written articles with no bias.

Here are some gems of insight from the first article:

Google can go to hell.

F#&! you Google, and f#&! the AMP horse you rode in on.

No that's not a rant.

@Leosghost I expected more from you. You often bring well thought out arguments and ideas to the discussion but not with those two articles.

[Leosghost]

You dispute the facts of what they say about amp, or how they say it..?

[NickMNS]

Both.

The speed test in the second example is flawed. The speed benefit of amp comes from testing the cached instance of the page. The test is conducted by requesting the actually instance of the AMP page. It is nearly impossible for someone other than Google to test the speed of the amp page because to do so requires that the page be displayed from Google search and none of the testing tools allow you to do this. This is one the most flagrant mis-steps in these articles but there are plenty of others. The bottom line is that the authors spend to much time bashing Google and not enough time understanding how AMP really works.

And as I stated above the issue with AMP is exactly that, it is complex and to really derive benefit from it one needs to have an understanding of these complexities. Most people don't. Furthermore an argument can be made that given these complexities, other and possibly just as complex solutions can provide pretty much the same results or better.

[Leosghost]

I was particularly interested about what was said about Google SERPs "pre-loading" amp pages, that implies that the more pages that use amp that are served in any particular SERP page, the more the "visitors" bandwidth is being used for downloading / preloading in the background things ( pages, texts and images ) which they have not actually requested.

Given how many people are on limited bandwidth and limited data plans, especially in the USA, it would seem that anyone using amp, is collaborating with Google to use the searcher's data allowance, even if there is no actual click on their site in SERP..This "pre loading" would appear to be the exact opposite of what we know as "lazy loading"..basically ( if what the article says is accurate ), then Google is giving the illusion of speed by using the bandwidth and data allowance of searchers without their knowledge, thus , those with a low data cap should avoid Google search..

I have truly unlimited data available on my mobiles ( cell phones ) , but I know many who are capped at 500 MB or 1 or 2 GB per month..overage charges would hurt..How are Google maps handled if they can be included on an amp page? Does the site get charged even if the site is not clicked and they are not thus displayed ( bu they are preloaded ) looking at a SERP which includes a lot of amp sites each with embedded Google maps could be lucrative for Google ( now that it charges sites for maps ), and be expensive for the searcher with a small data plan..

[graeme_p]

It is nearly impossible for someone other than Google to test the speed of the amp page because to do so requires that the page be displayed from Google search and none of the testing tools allow you to do this

That rather proves the point the articles were making: AMP puts Google in control.

AMP is presented as faster because its more efficient. If its actually faster because its served from a CDN and preloaded, the only thing special about AMP is that Google favours it, whereas it is presented as being faster because it is more efficient.

he reality is that an AMP implementation is a complex endeavor with many moving parts that requires deep understanding of AMP and all the parts that come into contact with it.

Which means its hard to implement and expensive. Not exactly plus points.

[NickMNS]

Which means its hard to implement and expensive. Not exactly plus points.

I never claimed that it was a plus point.

That rather proves the point the articles were making: AMP puts Google in control.

No not really, practically this is the case but it is possible to configure your own CDN to serve AMP pages. Cloudflare offers a service.
[cloudflare.com...]

[JS_Harris]

Well, you two proved my point from the second post flawlessly. The AMP honeymoon is over and they don't want to babysit it anymore, lol.

[graeme_p]

I know you can use Cloudflare and another CDN, and one of the advantages of the open governance model is that they get a say too.

However, if an AMP page only works properly from Google search, as you say, then Google is in a position of power.

@JS_Harris have you any numbers that show implementation cresting.

My take on Google's motives is that they realised that a lot of large media sites were never going to provide a good mobile experience on their own, so they saw an opportunity to fix the problem and profit from doing so.

[justa]

Sad to report that Bing is also now supporting AMP pages and stories within the carousel atop their mobile web results.

A great point made earlier that AMP is difficult to properly roles out and that a plug-in won’t just cut it. In that case, for the love of the web, please just build your sites fast and remove the point of AMP altogether.

[Leosghost]

A great point made earlier that AMP is difficult to properly roles out and that a plug-in won’t just cut it. In that case, for the love of the web, please just build your sites fast and remove the point of AMP altogether*.

^^^ This , 1000 times over..

*My bold..

[iamlost]

Polemic Digital, the first of Leosghost's links out above, is Barry Adams, a name familiar to many here, an SEO with two decades of experience. I don't always agree with him (or anyone) but I take what he says as worth consideration.

Ferdy Christant, I had never heard of prior to following Leosghost's link above.

What they both are saying is NOT new. I and others have made similar comments on AMP since it's proposal. Obviously, therefore, I agree with the points made in both.

Also, the 'open' governance model is, to date, a sham. With the exception of Léonie Watson (a woman I greatly respect) the board is mostly stacked with Googlers, advertisers, and CDNs: all fellow travellers in the walling of the web.

While there are several/many reasons to dislike AMP the following, in order, are mine:
1. preloading links is an abominable practice especially with mobile users.
2. preferential treatment to a quasi-proprietary format is an abominable practice. The latest marketing facelift changes little/nothing.
3. given that render speed (both to initial viewport and to full page) is knowable a 'real' interest in site speed would simply make it a 'real' substantial results weighting. That AMP is preferred tells us that site speed is an excuse.
4. AMP is Google's keeping up with the Joneses (Apple News, FB Instant Articles) walled gardens. Multiple private preserves is not synonymous with an open web.
5. that Google increasingly is using AMP as a club tells a tale of desperation. To which I say die, Die, DIE! Go the way of 99% of Google efforts to build rather than buy... ASAP.

[Leosghost]

^^^raises glass..of "leapfrog".. :)

[C_Zalcman]

As a senior software developer I can say that AMP for a website is the same
as web store for an app - corporate sandbox with censorship.
One click and your amp-website cease to be exist, no one see you,
because AMP web sites (and traffic) controlled by corporation, not by you.
It happens already with apps. Who next? The web. Do you really want to?