Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
AMP and why emails are not (and should never be) interactive (buttondown.com/blog)
124 points by maguay 10 hours ago | hide | past | favorite | 71 comments
add comment
Nifty3929 2 hours ago | next [–]
To me the most important objection is that an email is a record of something, and needs to be self-contained and immutable for that reason.
When I get an email, I want to know that I can always come back to that exact email for reference, and that there's no way that it can have changed, or that the
important information is externally referenced (and therefore also subject to change).
I think this is one important reason that more and more emails are just links to some website with the information on it (often with a login required as well). It
allows the company sending you the email to retain control of that information. If you email me a text or PDF invoice, I can always come back to it for my own
reference. If you send me a link to one, there's no guarantee I can still access it later.
reply
ChuckMcM 51 minutes ago | parent | next [–]
I believe this is exactly correct. Email is a 'paper trail' and being able to change that paper trail ex-post facto benefits the sender waaaaaaaaaaay more than
it does the receiver. I met an engineer from Google who quit when they insisted on "dogfooding" this.
They used the example, you send an email that says lets meet for dinner tonight at 6. You arrive and after 30 minutes begin to wonder, go back to your
email and now it says meet "tommorow night" at 6. Are you crazy? Did you misremember? Or did the sender change the email after they sent it and you
read it? How could you complain?
As I understand it, it was met internally with "that isn't what we mean." But the ability to send HR important announcements and then change them after
the fact is a capability that is just too tempting for HR to resist at some point.
reply
albert_e 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [–]
Absoutely agree,
Gmail started scraping all emails a decade ago. Amazon responded by removing all product and pricedetails from Order confirmation and Order shipping
emails. We consumers lost out -- we dont have our own copy and archive of what we ordered. If Amazon links perish to link rot and we lose access to
Amazon login, our past order and spend information is gone.
reply
LoganDark 1 hour ago | parent | prev | next [–]
> I think this is one important reason that more and more emails are just links to some website with the information on it (often with a login required as
well).
I hate this with all of my being. It's awful. Send me an email that tries to tell me how important the information is without actually giving me the
information... and I won't read it, fuck you. You don't get to decide which information I find important.
reply
xp84 27 minutes ago | root | parent | next [–]
I agree wholeheartedly -- it's like getting a postcard saying "You have an important message from your doctor, go visit the doctor's office to find out
what."
I respect that some of this is ass-covering because of overreaching regulation (or in many cases probably overly-conservative readings of the vague
regulations) especially with respect to HIPAA and Euro-style "Privacy" legislation, but personally I'd prefer to opt-out of all types of nanny-ism trying
to 'protect my privacy' by sending me content-free email with links, that then require that I 'click to view' and then, 90% of the time now, return to
my fucking email to retrieve a stupid code.
reply
room271 5 hours ago | prev | next [–]
While I agree with this article's conclusion, I think it conflates political/market objections to AMP (i.e. abuse of monopoly power) with technical concerns.
For a time, I tech-led the creation of the AMP site for a major news publisher. The technical choices of AMP, excluding the CDN-aspect, are I think a great fit for
publishing websites with tens-hundreds of developers who are all tempted to write bespoke JS and in so doing create performance and maintenance hell. In many
respects, philosophically, I think AMP was not far of HTMX. In AMP, developers are able to construct relatively sophisticated dynamic/interactive features using
simple markup (and pre-built JS components). The page is managed through a single JS runtime which helps manage performance issues. As components have a
standard HTML interface, it is possible to migrate the backend to different rendering technologies partially over time unlike (for example), isomorphic JS which
forces a large-scale rewrite down the line.
I tried to advocate for an in-house AMP-like solution for our main website, but it was ultimately re-written in React -- a process which took several years and
resulted in a codebase of much greater complexity. (Performance was better than the old website but I'm not sure React really contributed to the gains here.)
While AMP is rightly dead, I think the technical choices it made live on (or at least, they should).
reply
hn_throwaway_99 3 hours ago | parent | next [–]
Yeah, while I basically loathed AMP for all the control and monopolization issues, I do see what Google was trying to accomplish, at least at first.
Any front end dev has had to deal with the onslaught of asks from various marketing and sales teams: "Can you add this tag library?", "We need to
integrate this affiliate broker!", etc. etc. And lots of devs would push back with stuff like "At this point we load 247 3rd party tags and JS libraries and it
takes 53 seconds for our page to load, we have to stop this madness!" but the problem was that for any individual marketing team ask, the impact was
small and of course that team had some KPIs to hit this quarter. It was basically a sort of Tragedy of the Commons situation.
So AMP came along and essentially gave front-end devs a technical reason why they couldn't add some shitty, slow, buggy affiliate broker JS library to the
code base, so when marketing came with an ask, they could simply say "Sorry, not supported in AMP, and without AMP we get downranked in Google". AMP
essentially became a technical hack to align short term incentives ("We need to add some marketing feature X!") with longer term goals of faster, lighter-
weight pages.
reply
thehappypm 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
Yep. I totally see why they did it. It’s a user focus, not developer focus. Users just want faster webpages. The end.
reply
charcircuit 53 minutes ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
>without AMP we get downranked in Google
Whether a site used AMP did not affect ranking in Google.
reply
EvanAnderson 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [–]
> ...it conflates political/market objections to AMP (i.e. abuse of monopoly power)...
It never occurred to me that AMP is an initialism for "Abuse of Monopoly Power". It's deliciously fitting.
reply
BiteCode_dev 3 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
It's "accelerated mobile pages" but I love the abuse version.
reply
marcellus23 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
Well yes, obviously Google didn't actually name it for Abuse of Monopoly Power.
reply
ceejayoz 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
Not publicly, at least.
They've put some seriously dumb admissions in writing before.
https://www.techemails.com/p/sergey-brin-irate-call-from-ste...
reply
Lammy 1 hour ago | root | parent | next [–]
They learned from this and now just have periodic arbitrary layoffs to depress salaries and keep the workers scared and in line in
a deniable way instead of in an explicit way.
reply
MaxBarraclough 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [–]
Perhaps I'm just being dense, but I really don't see the point of AMP. If you want to build a non-bloated website, you don't need special branding from
Google to do so, you just need to care about the quality of your work. Websites like HackerNews, SourceHut, and Pinboard, are living proof.
The Wikipedia article does a very poor job, in my opinion, of explaining what AMP even is. [0] It emphasises use of CDN caching to improve performance,
but this can be done for any static website. What does AMP contribute? Where's the innovation?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_Mobile_Pages
reply
sanderjd 3 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
It wasn't innovative or intended to be, it was a solution to a collective action problem. It's easy to make the case for "we have to do it this way to
avoid being penalized in search rankings".
reply
MaxBarraclough 3 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
Doesn't Google already penalise websites for poor performance though? Why not just intensify that penalty, rather than develop and promote
a new framework intended to forcibly prohibit bloat?
reply
jeffbee 3 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
Sure but people won't always respond to incentives. It's like asking why AA exists when the cops will already throw you in jail for being
drunk in public.
Google will rank results partially based on page performance and behavior. It is possible to improve your ranking by improving page
experience. AMP is the complement: a tech stack that makes it impossible to not do those things.
reply
ec109685 2 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
With AMP, Google could preload and pre-render sites, so things like swiping through a carousel between search results was instant.
That’s not possible without building an AMP page since it requires being able to safely serve off of google’s domain.
reply
ravenstine 1 hour ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
With AMP, you basically get guard-rails to prevent your team of junior engineers from making your mobile pages too slow in exchange for increasing
The Google's monopoly power. :D If I remember correctly, with AMP, you have to use their web components, and you have to pass their validator or
pages won't be listed or cached at all. AMP is not really innovative in the slightest. One can easily serve pages faster than an average AMP page if
they wanted to. The businesses that see engineering as a necessary evil are not properly incentivized to care about page performance, and are
sometimes only prodded into doing so if a giant like The Google tells them to. Management tells their programmers that they read an article about
AMP and that it makes pages load faster and reaches a wider search audience by caching and cutting out unnecessary crap; the more seasoned
programmers think "Yeah, no shit – I've been trying to tell you... but I'll spend time rebuilding pages for AMP because I get paid the same either
way."
reply
lern_too_spel 34 minutes ago | root | parent | next [–]
> One can easily serve pages faster than an average AMP page if they wanted to
This is incorrect. You cannot beat prerendered. It does not make sense to implement AMP for people visiting your website directly. AMP is for
link aggregators like search engines, news aggregators, and social media websites.
reply
lern_too_spel 2 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
The innovation is that the page can be prerendered from cache without any privacy or analytics concerns. AMP is an open standard replacement for
Facebook Instant Articles and Apple News Format.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Instant_Articles
https://developer.apple.com/documentation/applenewsformat
reply
jeffbee 3 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
AMP is a set of rules for people who are unable to stop themselves from making bad decisions. It has nothing to do with technical superiority. AMP is
a deal under which, if an adopter stops acting like a jackass, they receive better search ranking. There is nothing that stops you from creating an
AMP-like experience if you are naturally not a jackass.
reply
dccoolgai 1 hour ago | root | parent | next [–]
Exactly this. AMP was not a technological concern so much as a "contract": I won't act like a jackass and do anti-user things on my site and
you will convey that to your readers/searchers.
reply
bayindirh 3 hours ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
> AMP is a deal under which, if an adopter stops acting like a jackass, they receive better search ranking.
You mean, jackassery like, not running ads from Google's ad platform(s)?
reply
jeffbee 3 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
AMP has no relationship to Google Ads, does not require Google Ads, and does not require using Google's CDN. There are dozens of ad
networks that support(ed) AMP.
Google Ads has integrations for AMP. AMP does not require Google Ads.
reply
Eric_WVGG 46 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [–]
AMP is a misplaced principle, because it says “due to the constraints of mobile, web pages should be lightweight, not overdo it on interactivity, and load
fast."
Instead they should have said, "Web pages should be lightweight not overdo it on interactivity, and load fast."
reply
no_wizard 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [–]
I like AMP conceptually, would make a good app platform for alot of types of websites and such.
I wish it was easier to fork, honestly. There's some good ideas within, though some questionable choices as well.
Unfortunately the project is rather opaque in a number of ways
reply
lern_too_spel 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
How would forking work? The whole point of AMP is that a cache can validate that it is safe to prerender. If you added your own stuff, the caches
would just reject it.
reply
trollbridge 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [–]
AMP seemed like a great technology that ended up being used for user-hostile purposes.
reply
Henchman21 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
If you swap out AMP for ${generic_tech} this statement seems to describe the latest 15 years of software development.
reply
LinuxBender 20 minutes ago | prev | next [–]
I've never received an AMP email but it looks like based on the format [1] one could search the body for cdn.ampproject.org and either REJECT, DISCARD in
Postfix or quarantine it if using some anti-spam platform.
# grep body main.cf
body_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/body_checks
# grep ampproj /etc/postfix/body_checks
/ampproject/ REJECT AMP IS NOT SUPPORTED ON THIS SERVER
[1] - https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/learn/ema...
reply
albert_e 15 minutes ago | prev | next [–]
> Four years earlier, the search giant had come for the mobile web with AMP—accreted mobile pages.
typo in third line of the post.
should i feel warm and fuzzzy knowing that this was not run through an LLM?
or is it a hallucination artifact of that very thing.
reply
h1fra 3 hours ago | prev | next [–]
When AMP was about to be released, I was the engineer in my company in charge of deciding whether to implement it. I discarded the idea, but months later we
realized Google was not joking about the SEO boost, and we had to backtrack very quickly in order to not lose to the competition. I regretted saying no because I
missed the opportunity, but I was still convinced it was a bad idea overall.
Now that it's gone, I could not be happier. Not only did AMP made the internet worse, but it was a pain to implement, a bad experience for users, and a bad deal
for media companies.
reply
Digit-Al 2 hours ago | prev | next [–]
Email and SQL: two technologies that people keep saying are out of date and need replacing, but they keep rolling on whilst attempted replacements wither on
the vine, with their dust eventually blowing away on the winds of time.
reply
skybrian 1 hour ago | parent | next [–]
Meanwhile, many people don’t send personal emails anymore and people have switched to a variety of chat apps instead. And a lot of businesses use chat
internally, such as Slack.
It’s mostly business use that’s keeping email alive, either business-to-consumer or business-to-business.
reply
nottorp 1 hour ago | prev | next [–]
IMO any standard pushed by the great internet gatekeepers (Google, Cloudflare etc) is best avoided.
And don't tell me Cloudflare does no evil, that goes for now, and that went for Google some time in the past too.
reply
faust201 3 hours ago | prev | next [–]
AMP was a boon to all crap sites built by S Asian newspapers etc. even FT, guardian at some point had individual pages that were about 50x larger than it's AMP
equivalent. Yes, for the rich AMP is monopoly etc. for poor like me - I prefer less data usage.
reply
epc 3 hours ago | prev | next [–]
Netscape tried dynamic email with Communicator in the 90s…somehow I still have the sample "Airius Airway's 401k Contributions Worksheet" with JavaScript
embedded (Gmail obviously ignores it). IIRC no one, and I mean no one, took advantage of it.
reply
0xbadcafebee 2 hours ago | prev | next [–]
"Interactive email" is basically Slack.
We should make Slack a new internet protocol and application standard, and use that going forward to replace e-mail, texting, and the various isolated islands of
"secure chat" solutions (WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, etc). Allow us to retain and control our own data, while also enabling all of the features and functionality
we've come to want from modern tools, and be compatible with other solutions.
IRC and e-mail are both old and busted. 99% of the world wants to communicate and share information with more interactive tooling than ASCII text in a console
or static HTML in a mail reader. There are alternatives to Slack, but like every networked application created in the last 10 years, none of them define an
interoperable standard. They are all their own vendor-lock-in islands.
Even Mattermost, the most polished "open-source" alternative, is not a standard, it's an application. Applications change all the time. Standards don't.
Applications lose backwards compatibility, change their licenses, have closed ecosystems of servers. Standards don't. There's a reason that actual standard
network protocols continue to work for 40 years, while applications made just a few years ago are dead and buried. Standards last. They enable interoperability in
an ecosystem of supported technology. They give us flexibility, choice, competition, portability. The world is better when we have solid standards to build on.
Replace it all with a standard. Let anyone implement the standard, implement a client, a server, etc. And let people choose the tooling they want - but while being
interoperable with everyone else's.
(Note that I'm not talking about federated social networks. E-mail and IRC are not social networks, they are communication tools, private by default, and have to
be directed at specific individuals or groups)
reply
watermelon0 1 hour ago | parent | next [–]
I think that you just described XMPP and Matrix, which are both standards.
reply
layer8 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [–]
Slack is chat, and chat is not email. Email has important properties that are lost in a chat protocol/UI.
reply
nottorp 1 hour ago | parent | prev | next [–]
Slack is basically irc with some bells and whistles, sorry :)
reply
nightpool 57 minutes ago | root | parent | next [–]
It really, really isn't.
reply
iaabtpbtpnn 1 hour ago | parent | prev | next [–]
You want THE communication standard to be owned by Salesforce?
reply
marcellus23 43 minutes ago | root | parent | next [–]
> Replace it all with a standard. Let anyone implement the standard, implement a client, a server, etc. And let people choose the tooling they want -
but while being interoperable with everyone else's.
reply
hughw 3 hours ago | prev | next [–]
Google Wave (ca 2009) also claimed that it would replace email. Expect the next email replacement from Google in 2029.
reply
ChrisArchitect 2 hours ago | prev | next [–]
This is a weird thing to write about in 2025. AMP emails didn't really take off / get any kind of adoption did they. And HTML emails, annoying and problematic as
they are have come a long way from the mess of client support and complete hack-job coding to where they are now thanks to standards and largely the
popularity of web-based clients and the benefits those bring for email reading. GIFs inside emails unthinkable and ridiculous ten years ago. Today, not a big deal
really for a good chuck of audiences. Etc.
reply
kotaKat 2 hours ago | parent | next [–]
I do remember using WorkMarket a long time ago and experiencing the bizarreness of their emails as they were one of the very few AMP users.
They'd send out emails about work opportunities and leveraged AMP to be able to go back into the email and tell you if it's still available to apply for or not
in realtime, so you wouldn't have to click through and be disappointed it was already taken.
reply
robertoandred 1 hour ago | parent | prev | next [–]
On the contrary. The only place you get a standards-based email is Apple Mail on Mac and iOS. Gmail's web client is absolutely terrible for web standards.
Outlook, on the web or app, is almost as bad.
reply
Spivak 6 hours ago | prev | next [–]
I'm gonna take the other end of the luddite argument— this is cool as hell and they should lean into it more. Discord has proven that an app platform hiding
underneath IRC is hugely popular. Email with the power of discord integrations and bots would get me to up drop gmail immediately.
reply
bayindirh 5 hours ago | parent | next [–]
No, thank you. E-Mail is designed to be an analog to, well, analog mail. I expect to open the same e-mail 5 years later and see it intact, in meaning sense.
For interactivity, we have web pages, and they seem to work fine.
This doesn't compare with Discord, because Discord is meant to be a "chat" platform for ephemeral issues to begin with (yet it's abused as a permanent
platform), and AMP for e-mail is abusing a platform designed for permanence for temporary communications.
That's a bad idea(TM).
reply
goku12 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [–]
The use case you described is genuine. But the problem I see here is the insistence that the email platform should fulfill those requirements instead of
creating a new platform and letting it win the market on its own merit.
People have certain expectations from emails, which have remained largely unchanged since the emergence of the internet. Those include a federated and
fully open platform, immutability of messages that make it valuable as communication records, privacy afforded by plaintext, simplicity of use, etc. Many
changes have already ruined some of those qualities of emails. For example, introduction of HTML in emails have converted emails from a messaging
platform to an ad and tracking platform, forcing many clients to block dynamically loaded resources. Quoting of prior messages have become a complete
mess. But worst of all, the email platform is arguably no longer fully federated, now that it's nearly impossible to self host email servers.
It wouldn't be a stretch to argue that changes like these are intended more to centralize the email network than to add features to it. AMP is a clear
aggression in that step. It's telling that neither AMP for web, nor AMP for email survived once Google was forced to stop pushing the so aggressively. Makes
you question who wanted it so badly and why.
reply
surajrmal 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
The chance of another distributed platform with the properties desired seems small. Why should email be resistant to any change? Takes like this is
why every company develops their platforms as silos rather than open standards. To avoid the inability to ever make a change once it becomes
popular. Instead, at best, we end up with large monocultures around an open source project such as Linux or chromium. Maybe that's better and
email like platforms are a mistake, but fundamentally I don't feel like that should be true.
reply
tacker2000 1 hour ago | parent | prev | next [–]
Discord is the worst platform of all. All content is hidden for outsiders, non-indexable by search engines, its the prime example of non-open siloed
knowledge. To this day I will not use a project if it heavily relies on discord. All of the content could be gone at once, at the whims of one company.
reply
Kwpolska 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [–]
Discord is not built on IRC. It's a completely custom, proprietary thing. "Servers" are not separate machines, as they are in IRC land, they're just groups of
channels.
reply
trollbridge 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [–]
Such an "interactive" use would need to keep the basic structure of email; for example, a bot you can email and it talks back to you. (Such things have
been tried before, but never really caught on.)
If Discord had the same spam or mass marketing problems that email and postal mail have, nobody would willingly use Discord. As it stands, the primary
purpose of email is to get authentication codes emailed to you so you can login to other things.
reply
AlexandrB 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [–]
It could be cool as hell if it would be used for any purpose other than sending marketing communication. But, unfortunately, we live in this world.
reply
rchaud 4 hours ago | prev | next [–]
This article misses the point of why emails were made interactive in the first place - to satisfy the demands of marketers. 90% of the emails you get are
marketing-related. If you get an email that says "4 days left for our holiday sale", that counter will need to be updated if the email is not read on the same day.
It's a small, maybe frivolous-sounding use case, but a lot of feature bloat starts out this way.
reply
Nazzareno 3 hours ago | parent | next [–]
You can do much more with AMP, not only marketing related stuff. Indeed, countdown timers can be done much easier with many tools (Nifty Images,
Sendtric etc) without AMP.
reply
rchaud 1 hour ago | root | parent | next [–]
AMP as described in this article provides a wrapper for some templated kinds of JS functionality. My comment wasn't specific to AMP, it was to the
article's main point about "interactive emails" being unnecessary.
reply
BiteCode_dev 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [–]
You don't need interactivity for this, you just need "<img src="" />"
reply
dawnerd 3 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
Which still isn’t perfect as images get cached at different stages depending on the email client.
reply
johannes1234321 2 hours ago | root | parent | next [–]
Or can be blocked or are opaque to visually impaired.
reply
neuroelectron 4 hours ago | prev [–]
Everything Google has done in the last 20 years has made the web worse.
reply
jefftk 3 hours ago | parent [–]
This is just obviously false. If you want to claim that Google's impact has been on balance negative we can certainly argue about that, but some clearly
positive things include:
* Massive security improvements, including encryption (pushing HTTPS throughout the stack, funding Let's Encrypt, trackers on HTTPS adoption), site
isolation, Project Zero, certificate transparency, pushing CSPs, authentication standards.
* Large speed improvements, including V8, HTTP/2, HTTP/3, Brotli.
* Web standards, including work on HTML5, JS standardization, web assembly, CSS flexbox and grid, webrtc.
(Disclosure: I worked on web stuff at Google 2012-2022)
reply
nottorp 1 hour ago | root | parent [–]
> pushing HTTPS throughout the stack
Barriers to entry for self hosted sites. Easier to host with Google now.
> Large speed improvements, including V8, HTTP/2, HTTP/3, Brotli.
HTTP/whatever was done only for Google's benefit.
> Web standards, including work on HTML5, JS standardization, web assembly, CSS flexbox and grid, webrtc.
If they're so standard why do people develop for Chrome and ignore other browsers?
reply
jefftk 56 minutes ago | root | parent | next [–]
> Barriers to entry for self hosted sites. Easier to host with Google now.
Let's Encrypt (which Google helped fund) is the opposite of a barrier to entry. Free domain-validated fully automated HTTPS cert distribution
wasn't a thing, and now it is. It makes it way easier to self host in a post-PRISM world.
Also, Google does a tiny fraction of overall web hosting.
> HTTP/whatever was done only for Google's benefit.
Your claim is that everything Google has done has been worse for the web, so you don't get to pick individual tech that's clearly good (ex: V8)
and ignore it. And whether things were done for Google's benefit is also irrelevant: the claim is about outcomes.
On the specific question of HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, these have made large improvements in end-to-end loading times across the web, including
when Google is at neither end of the connection, and especially for high latency connections like mobile.
> If they're so standard why do people develop for Chrome and ignore other browsers?
All of the things I listed are widely supported and fully standardized.
There are other parts of the web platform that aren't, and that does push people to Chrome, but that's not what we're talking about.
Again, if you'd like to claim Google's impact has been bad on net that's much more arguable, but your claim is way stronger than that.
reply
nottorp 44 minutes ago | root | parent | next [–]
> Free domain-validated fully automated HTTPS cert distribution wasn't a thing, and now it is.
Free compulsory ...
reply
charcircuit 35 minutes ago | root | parent | prev [–]
>If they're so standard why do people develop for Chrome and ignore other browsers?
Because in practice each browser is a separate app platform with support of different features and with different performance profiles. From a
business perspective for a business to expand to a new app platform there must be some sort of justification to do so. As an extreme example
think of why don't websites also remake their site on Roblox for example? Supporting a product on an app platform well is expensive and not
all platforms can justify that expense.
reply
nottorp 16 minutes ago | root | parent [–]
But ... i thought Google was standardizing the web.
Would they be introducing features to their browser at a speed no one else can match just to create a lock in effect instead?
And are those features benefiting every site or are they targeted towards Google properties?
reply
Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!
Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact
Search:
