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.
> Per research tests which look at load times and abandonment, under 1 second has the same retention as instant.
Citation needed.
> A large number of electrons have been spilled on this topic.
Most of those electrons have been spilled by people who do not understand what AMP does, which included you until you had read the GP post. Those arguments are nonsensical to somebody who does understand what AMP does.
> even worse to try and paint RSS and similar as harmful.
I do not think RSS is harmful, but your stated reasons for claiming that AMP is harmful apply equally well to RSS. Your argument is therefore inconsistent with itself.
