I avoid GOOG when possible, so I have to copy out <content> manually, which is (minorly) annoying. Thus, AMP leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Then, of course, there's a variety of ideological arguments against it, but those have all been discussed ad nauseam, so I'll leave them out of this post.
If Google really cared about fixing the root of the problem, they would put the AMP icon next to sites that are already small and already load fast, and rank them higher, rather than creating a new platform.
A) Not de-ranking sites that are large and slow
B) Asking them to run a bunch of unnecessary trackers (Google Analytics)
I've never used AMP, but it does sound like it is fast, and web-page bloat is indeed a problem. But adding another layer (which also just happens to make you more beholden to Google) isn't the right way to fix that problem, removing the bloated layers is.
B) GA is super lightweight compared to almost every other thing people put on their sites. I mean, it's the equivalent of one tiny image.
B) And? It doesn't matter how lightweight it is. It's still unnecessary.
The result is the same (you murdered somebody), but it very much matters if and how I was involved.
Who are you to decide if GA is unnecessary?
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2018/01/using-page-speed-i...
They don't weight it high it enough. The fact that it took until 2018 until they did that for mobile is telling enough.
The actual article is a legitimate issue and should be looked into (and sounds like it is), but the vitriol for AMP voiced here is crazy, considering what it does (very little).
I'd rather not deal with AMP and just go with the real page + an ad blocker. Fortunately, in iOS, the ad blockers also work in certain types of embedded web views (SafariViewController) that my RSS Reader uses.