AMP content does look different, even across our own brands. I'm talking about the experience of tapping on a link from Google's search results. For non-AMP con

AMP content does look different, even across our own brands. I'm talking about the experience of tapping on a link from Google's search results. For non-AMP content some publishers might show you an interstitial ad, or a banner ad that pushes down the content as you start reading it, some publishers don't/can't do caching correctly, can't optimize images cross resolutions, etc. It's a frustrating experience for the web, specially when you compare it to the Apple's News app for example. Let alone if you're trying to search for web content on a 2G connection... AMP incentivizes publishers to implement behavior and functionality that results in a better and consistent experience for the Google end user, this is a fact. Sure, the incentives for the publisher often boil down to SEO and ensuring their content is discoverable on the Google platform (as mentioned in the post when we talk about visibility and discoverability). We can discuss how ethical or unethical it is for Google to use SEO incentives in order to push publishers to deliver AMP content, but that's a different conversation. I fully believe in the open web, when compared to Apple News and Facebook Instant Articles, AMP is clearly the more open solution. Even thought AMP is not perfect, I truly believe the benefits for the end users on the Google platform are there. Condé Nast does have full control over our content and sites. Don't forget, the majority of the traffic to our business is non-amp. Our regular sites perform really well (specially when compared with other players in our space) and we're constantly improving them. We're absolutely doing the hard work there and will continue to do so. We will also continue to distribute content to other platforms besides Google AMP whenever it makes sense.