[ShellGh0st]

Google is grabbing a normal website and completely, utterly breaking it. Have you ever actually tried to use an AMP page, share it, etc?

AMP is garbage, and honestly whoever signed off on it shouldn't have a position at Google or wider tech community.

[bitmapbrother]

It's the creator of the content that creates the AMP page and publishes it on AMP.

[IanCal]

That's not quite accurate. If you make an AMP page, Google will cache it. Google caching it is not optional.

https://developers.google.com/amp/cache/faq#can-i-stop-conte...

[EGreg]

Why would you make an AMP page?

[IanCal]

Restricting what you use to the AMP subset would make your page quite fast, with a dependency on a javascript file that most mobile browsers should have cached, along with having your page in the top carousel loading in smoothly like all the others. This can all be detected from your main page when crawled (as it'll link to the AMP version) so depending on the device one or the other can be presented as a search result.

None of that requires being hosted by google.

[endorphone]

None of that requires being hosted by google.

Caching is a part of the platform and is entirely coherent with the goals, and if you want analytics or ads, you approach those in a different way. AMP caching isn't limited to Google - Bing, for instance, caches and serves AMP as well. Ultimately anyone could, and HN could cache and quick-serve AMP content for supporting sources. AMP is open source and any one can take part.

I should add a side note that many of the comments on here have taken the predictable turn of claiming that people who defend AMP are "over invested" or must work at Google. I have nothing to do with Google, and have a reasoned, fact-based opinion on AMP. I think it's a last-ditch salvation for a web where sites are demonstrating a tragedy of the commons. Nor do I think everyone denouncing AMP works for Apple or some competitor.

[IanCal]

Coherent with the goals, sure, but not required for any benefit. [edit for clarity, while it may improve things, it is not required for at least some benefit]

What I dislike is not being able to choose simply to make and host an AMP content myself without google taking it and hosting it on their own servers. I cannot opt-in to this, nor can I opt-out. My only choice is to not do anything with AMP.

What is the way to host your own AMP cache? The AMP project under caching just shows the google cache and links to a google page.

As a side note, what if what I publish is not acceptable by google? Will they remove my content, despite having already taken it and given it to people under that URL? If AMP content must be loaded from the caches, is my content only valid AMP if google and the jurisdictions they operate under approve?

[JoshMnem]

"Open source" in that context is a meaninless buzzword. It is not "open" when giant companies appify your content in their walled gardens, even if you can read part of the code.

[kahnpro]

How can it be called an HTML subset when they've introduced custom tags like "amp-img"?

[floatboth]

Custom Elements are a web standard. Anyone can just make up new tags, if they include a hyphen in the name. And with customElements.define() you can attach an ES6 class to that element and boom, DOM as an open component model.

AMP is a subset because in addition to the elements, they provide a set of restrictions that would make your page "valid AMP" and cached by Google's creepy CDN thingy.