If publishers spent a few hours they could make extremely lightweight pages too (even with media and ads).
Here's an AMP page: https://amp.gstatic.com/v/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/us/r...
The innovation of Facebook instant articles and AMP isn't technical, it's that they have been able to convince publishers that getting rid of all the bells and whistles will actually benefit them – and that if they don't do it, it will harm them because huge traffic drivers like Twitter won't put up with it anymore.
I dont think there is any innovation at all with either Facebook or Google, it's all about keeping the user on their service longer and by hosting the content themselves, they increase speed and claim more user time. It's a pure monopoly play with Apple, Google, Facebook having far more leverage than publishers (who have really none these days). Pubs need traffic to survive which is why they are willing to work with this, but the revenue potential is still up in the air so long-term sustainability is not anywhere near proven. I'm not convinced that this will work as a viable model, beyond the technical implementation.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/01/business/cost-...
That Google et. al. are publishing a parallel framework to HTML indicates their goal is not just making mobile web faster, but in controlling that experience, to whatever end they may have in mind.
Isn't Google already claiming to demote sites that are slow to load, have content below the fold, etc?
I think AMP is useful as a standard: setting a set of requirements to be considered an AMP page. Having such a brand plus possible beneficial treatment in search engines, will encourage publishers to adopt it.
Sometimes a strong incentive is needed to change things.