In reply to David Gehring.

Hey David,

I understand your stance, but the opposition is more based around the origin of beneficiaries you are clearly pointing out yourself. It solves problems for companies like Google and maybe some publishers, although in Germany, many publishers don’t like the fact that their content is syndicated away from their sites, but have to play along as there is no way around Google these days. Adding the fight over the point of contact with content. Maybe let’s leave that topic aside.

What I wanted to get to is the notion around AMP being in any way Web Designer centric. It is not, really. It rather forces everything through a sieve to be easily digested, cache and delivered. Not only that, but it is an unwanted optimization/variation pushed onto the Web Designer (/Developer) to fulfill extrinsic demands.

I actually don’t believe in some malicious intent, but there is a force weighing on the community if Google decrees something like AMP to beneficiary in ranking. Like the YouTube ad money, controlling the rules around page ranking or prioritization are a real and powerful sword to wield.

Hence, there are grounds to assert an agenda at work, even if it might just have grown and evolved over time.