You complained that it was hosted on Google specifically. I tested that Chrome specifically copies the canonical URL and not the location bar URL when I share that AMP page, which doesn't fit your narrative.
Also, the reason the AMP page is faster is that it prerenders above the fold from a SERP, not due to total page weight.
AMP is, hosting aside, a problematic project when it comes to Google's business ethics.
And the differences in rendering speed were negligible, to my eyes. IIRC from the dev tools, it was about 1/10th of a second difference to get readable content.
AMP is basically gobbling up other contributor’s content and shamelessly profits at the expense of the content owner. As an end user I also don’t like amp. Im on duckduckgo now
> And the differences in rendering speed were negligible, to my eyes
Reread my previous post. You didn't load it from a SERP. That's what AMP is useful for, instant loading from link aggregators.
> AMP is, hosting aside, a problematic project when it comes to Google's business ethics.
How, especially considering that Google's browser does not share AMP URLs? Is RSS a problematic project? How about GTFS or microdata? All three give the user a better experience at the expense of the publisher.
Per research tests which look at load times and abandonment, under 1 second has the same retention as instant. So, AMP provides no practical benefits here.
> How [is AMP problematic]?
A large number of electrons have been spilled on this topic. I recommend reading one of those. It really comes across as an attempt to argue in bad faith by ignoring these well-distributed (especially on HN) concerns; even worse to try and paint RSS and similar as harmful.