> I’ve had the pleasure of working with more than twenty thousand publishers in the five years since AMP’s launch, and I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a single reason that a publisher uses AMP other than to obtain this priority placement.
So I know nothing about AMP, but I've skimmed through the Google's documentation of signed exchanges, and it seemed like a good thing. I assume that it is the foundation of AMP. Isn't the point of signed exchanges that you, the publisher, don't have to invest in beefy servers and CDNs, and instead rely on third parties (for fee or free) to store the (signed) content? Of course AMP being a Google service the monopoly thing is hard to ignore.
> AMP created all kinds of problems, from analytics to ad serving to logins.
Oh no, it hinders competition with Google for surveillance and ad spam!
It's a pity you're being downvoted (perhaps because of the sarcastic tone of your final sentence), as I think you are right about Signed Exchanges. The technology could have some useful non-evil applications.
I wrote another comment in this discussion about this:
So I know nothing about AMP, but I've skimmed through the Google's documentation of signed exchanges, and it seemed like a good thing. I assume that it is the foundation of AMP. Isn't the point of signed exchanges that you, the publisher, don't have to invest in beefy servers and CDNs, and instead rely on third parties (for fee or free) to store the (signed) content? Of course AMP being a Google service the monopoly thing is hard to ignore.
> AMP created all kinds of problems, from analytics to ad serving to logins.
Oh no, it hinders competition with Google for surveillance and ad spam!