AMP is definitely a bad taste. The bad feelings here are legitemate for sure. Still, I recognize at least some of the desires here. The web did have a huge prob

AMP is definitely a bad taste. The bad feelings here are legitemate for sure. Still, I recognize at least some of the desires here. The web did have a huge problem with sites loading slow, and it on average could be better; AMP did prune things down & make a number of picks that would make things a lot faster. It was a careful subset. People detested that AMP sites got privilege in search rankings, and that was definitely a huge issue & uncool as heck. Right off the bat, Google did say they wanted to try to open up the capabilities to other sites. They wanted to make generic web technology where sites could safely embed content in a "search carousel", without AMP. But AMP stuck around for years as the only way to do that. The third AMP issue is what they kept wanting to make Google the first party host of a lot of this stuff, again crying that it was the only way they felt sure users would have fast experiences. And again, they said they hoped to have web specs to let them not have to do this in the future, coupled with the above search carousel/packaged site ideas. Which again was just incredibly slow to mature. I think AMP really polarized people stronger than it should have. It wasn't great. And worse, it was one of the rare times we've seen Google really try to play at picking favorites; they said they were going to open things up so others could also have similar benefits without being AMP, but it was incredibly slow to mature (in part because the standards development for WebPackage has gone soo slow). But they really did tackle real issues & did try to make things better; they really did have a very fast loading, lower jank page system that sites could quickly build with & get consistent good results from. Still, there were so many political land mines they created with this attempt; I want to recognize there are real interests here, but absolutely, in the end, this was an incredibly damaging bad experience. Still, I think there's an Occam's Razer view here. Either Google is an incredibly crafty top-down well-planned mastermind, who has incredibly complex schemes to "take over" the web. Or it's just a variety of different attempts to try to make things better, different organizational fiefs within a huge entity, and sometimes people are a little short-sighted about what a lightning rod their work might become. Yes: I think AMP is a pretty exceedingly bold & indeed misguided attempt, a huge lightning road for understandable frustration. But it's 7 years old now, and we haven't seen this kind of balderdashery since. Google isn't pushing AMP like they were, they're fine with it being a sparsely adopted toolkit, most of the teams have moved on, and we don't see a lot of similar picking favorites plays since. Some of WebPackage has shipped & we can do a lot of cool things now that AMP dreamed up, with no Google involved.