The blog post argues against interactive emails, specifically targeting AMP for Email. It contends that email's simplicity and plain text accessibility are its strengths, while interactivity introduces complexity, security risks, and accessibility issues. AMP, despite promising dynamic content, ultimately failed to gain traction because it bloated email size, created rendering inconsistencies across clients, demanded extra development effort, and ultimately provided little benefit over well-designed traditional HTML emails with clear calls to action leading to external web pages. Email's purpose, the author asserts, is to deliver concise information and entice clicks to richer online experiences, not to replicate those experiences within the inbox itself.
Justin Duke's blog post, "AMP and why emails are not (and should never be) interactive," reflects on the rise and fall of Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) for email, arguing vehemently against the concept of interactive emails. Duke begins by charting the history of AMP, initially conceived as a way to speed up webpage loading times on mobile devices. Google later extended AMP's functionality to email, promising a more dynamic and engaging user experience within the inbox itself. This included features like real-time updates, interactive forms, and dynamic content manipulation, all without leaving the email client.
Duke meticulously dismantles the purported benefits of AMP for email. He argues that the core premise – enriching the email experience – is fundamentally flawed. Email, he posits, is deliberately designed as a simple, document-centric communication medium. Its strength lies in its universality and reliability, enabling seamless information exchange across diverse platforms and clients. Introducing interactivity, according to Duke, jeopardizes this fundamental simplicity and introduces a host of complications.
The blog post then delves into the technical intricacies of AMP implementation, highlighting the added complexity for both email senders and recipients. Senders are burdened with implementing and maintaining AMP-specific code, increasing development costs and potential points of failure. Recipients, on the other hand, face potential security risks and privacy concerns, particularly regarding data leakage and tracking. The added complexity also negatively impacts email accessibility, potentially excluding users with disabilities or those relying on less sophisticated email clients.
Furthermore, Duke underscores the anti-competitive nature of AMP for email, arguing that it gives Google undue influence over the email ecosystem. He points out the potential for Google to leverage AMP to gather user data and further solidify its dominance in the online advertising space. He suggests that the open nature of email is paramount and that proprietary technologies like AMP threaten this open standard.
The article concludes by reiterating Duke's conviction that email should remain a simple and reliable communication tool. He celebrates the eventual demise of AMP for email, viewing it as a victory for the open web and a reaffirmation of the enduring value of email's inherent simplicity. He suggests that the focus should instead be on improving existing email standards like HTML and CSS to enhance accessibility and deliver a consistent user experience, rather than introducing complex and potentially problematic interactive elements. Duke firmly believes that the future of email lies in its simplicity, not in chasing the fleeting allure of interactivity.
Summary of Comments ( 44 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43725865
HN commenters generally agree that AMP for email was a bad idea. Several pointed out the privacy implications of allowing arbitrary JavaScript execution within emails, potentially exposing sensitive information to third parties. Others criticized the added complexity for both email developers and users, with little demonstrable benefit. Some suggested that AMP's failure stemmed from a misunderstanding of email's core function, which is primarily asynchronous communication, not interactive web pages. The lack of widespread adoption and the subsequent deprecation by Google were seen as validation of these criticisms. A few commenters expressed mild disappointment, suggesting some potential benefits like real-time updates, but ultimately acknowledged the security and usability concerns outweighed the advantages. Several comments also lamented the general trend of "over-engineering" email, moving away from its simple and robust text-based roots.
The Hacker News post titled "AMP and why emails are not (and should never be) interactive" has generated a significant discussion with numerous comments. Many of the comments express strong opposition to AMP for email, echoing the sentiment of the original blog post.
Several commenters focus on the privacy implications of AMP, arguing that it allows Google to track user interactions within emails, providing them with even more data. This is seen as a significant downside, especially considering the potential for abuse and the general lack of trust in Google's data handling practices. One commenter specifically mentions that allowing dynamic content in emails would make phishing attacks significantly easier to execute, making it harder for users to distinguish between legitimate and malicious emails.
Another recurring theme is the added complexity for both email developers and users. Developers would need to learn and implement AMP, increasing development costs and potentially leading to inconsistencies across email clients. For users, the interactive elements could be confusing or even annoying, particularly for those who prefer the simplicity of traditional email. One commenter notes the irony of Google pushing for more complexity in email while simultaneously promoting the minimalist "Inbox Zero" philosophy.
Some commenters also question the actual benefits of AMP for email, arguing that the proposed interactive features, such as completing surveys or browsing product catalogs directly within emails, are not particularly compelling and could be easily achieved through traditional links to external websites. The added complexity and privacy concerns are seen as outweighing any potential benefits.
There is also discussion about the control Google would gain over email communication with AMP. Commenters express concern that Google could potentially manipulate the functionality of AMP, favoring their own services or even censoring certain types of content within emails. This control is seen as a threat to the open nature of email communication.
Finally, several commenters express skepticism about Google's motivations for pushing AMP for email, suggesting that it's primarily driven by their desire to collect more data and further integrate their services into users' lives. They see AMP as another attempt by Google to exert more control over the internet, rather than a genuine effort to improve the email experience. The ultimate failure of AMP is highlighted by multiple commenters, bolstering the arguments against its implementation in email.