[ec109685]

And the trope about it being slower is false. Yes, if you serve an amp page to someone who happens to come to your site, it’s slower, but if it’s displayed from Google search result page, Google pre-renders the page, making it instant.

The Apple News comparison is interesting from the article. Why doesn’t Apple get the hate given Apple News doesn’t just link to mobile web pages instead of articles of their own format?

[nerdjon]

Apple News is a choice for both the publisher and the user. Also its an App, it sending you to a website would not be a great user experience.

APM was strong-armed onto publishers and users never had a choice, even though google has long been asked to have an option to enable APM from the user side. Google used their search control to get APM used.

[canes123456]

Users and publishers opt in and out for apple news.

Google makes it hard as hell to opt out of it for customers. They also show up higher in google so it not really an option to not support it as a publisher.

[ec109685]

There are tens of millions who use Apple News since it’s the default news reading experience everywhere on iOS, so not participating would hurt publishers.

[tyingq]

>Why doesn’t Apple get the hate

Because Apple News isn't an effective defacto monopoly in huge spaces like "web search" and "browsers". AMP content gets forced on, for example, Android owners, and it's difficult to avoid. And it was forced on publishers when the net effect of not using it was reduced organic traffic...that's how you got shite stuff like Reddit AMP pages.

[ec109685]

Apple News has a monopoly on built in news reader on iOS, plus various promotion vehicles within it, so I think the analogy is close.

[tyingq]

Apple does get hate for areas that are large, like the app store.