IMO AMP was still a problem. It’s a version of HTML de facto controlled by Google. There’s window dressing of a foundation or whatever but Google calls the shots on what it does and does not do. To me that made AMP a five alarm fire right from the start.
In fairness AMP does not have a requirement to use a CDN. It allows the use of a CDN which was another reason why Google pushed it (to do all kind of same-domain tricks), but to keep on topic, I actually don't think Twitter used that Google cache.
The original article is talking about traffic from Twitter to publisher sites, not traffic from Google to Twitter. Twitter never used AMP for pages on their own site.
In this case Twitter is the platform, not the publisher, and would absolutely have been able to not use the Google cache.
> Now, when using one of Twitter's mobile clients, users will be sent to the amphtml URL in their browser, instead of the link that was shared in the Tweet. Users will load this link directly, not via a page cache. [0]
> it's actually the platform that links to your content that chooses the AMP Cache (if any) to use
Twitter (the platform that links to AMP content) could choose which AMP cache if any to use.
Oh, I guess maybe the confusion here is that your argument is that as a page publisher you cannot opt out of the Google CDN? I read your original statement as "it is not possible to view AMP content without using the Google CDN"
We're on a discussion page for an article about Twitter's use of AMP in their own app, which was never proxied through anything, much less proxied through Google.
Google calls the shots on what the web does and does not do via the majority browser - Chrome. I wouldn't consider AMP any more dangerous than Chrome in this argument. There were other problems with AMP.
