> Disclosure: I work on AMP.

Do you all just not think about the long-term implications of what you're building? It's going to destroy the open WWW.

Web publishers (and other people who are paying attention) don't want AMP or Portals, but they are being strong-armed into it under threat of losing their traffic.

The problem is, Google is using its monopoly to strong-arm publishers into using a sub-par technology that harms their brand and reduces their income.

And the worst thing is, without these publishers, Google would have no content and therefore no value.

Yes, sub-100ms is attractive. But what do you compromise to achieve that goal?

Who pays the price? Publishers who are already struggling, so that the only content on the web becomes content farm affiliate sales shit?

Would you say that the majority of design decisions at Google in recent times have been in relation to the idea of building services towards developing countries/economies where infrastructure is not necessarily as well developed, tailoring it towards those few billion soon-to-be newly connected people who previously have never had access to the internet before?