[mdasen]

It totally is a great experience. The page loads fast without too much crap.

But it's also sad that something not-quite-open is taking over an important part of the web. AMP is this Google-wrapped version of a part of the web that tries to keep you in Google's land rather than allowing you to browse the site you visited.

As a user, I like clicking on AMP links. But in a certain way, it's like eating candy. I know it's not good for the web and openness over the long term. But in the short term, it's just so nice.

[CaptSpify]

And this is why I dislike AMP. Instead of doing the right thing and rewarding good sites, Google instead is using the opportunity to push everyone into their ecosystem. The better solution is to encourages sites to think about their design and reward them accordingly.

[ctack]

I find the idea of the largest search engine repackaging others content without even hitting the content owner's site to be frankly rude. These sites pander to be ranked and get hits and then Google turns around and pulls this.

[Lazare]

AMP is an opt-in thing that publishers have to implement. If you go out of your way to get google to display your AMP content, it's hardly "rude", nor is google "pulling something" on the sites.

A valid critique is that publishers might feel forced to offer AMP whether they want to or not in order to still get traffic and pagerank, but even then, it's not like they're being tricked. It's still opt in.

[1123581321]

The sites are implementing AMP. Google gets the HTML and assets for its CDN cache by crawling the sites. Publishers are aware of this.