As an AMP "hater", I couldn't care less about the AMP user experience. My problem with AMP is that to be on Google's Carousel, which shows up at the top of mobile search results, you need to serve your content from Google's servers.

If Google allowed people to host AMP pages on their own servers and still show up on the Carousel, I would have no problem with AMP. As it is, though, AMP is a blatant power-grab from a corporation that's already got way too much control over the web.

> from a user perspective it's a great experience imho.

Until you need to share a link, wonder why the page loaded slower than normal thanks to 100Kb of render-blocking JavaScript, or get phished or believe a spoof because it has google.com in the URL.

I really like the stated goals but shipping something with usability problems is a great way to get tarnish its reputation. Hopefully this new incarnation will live up to the original hope.

My primary frustration with AMP is how badly it breaks tabbed browsing.

In Google News, on a Google device running a Google browser on a Google OS, I can't even open a news article in a new tab because of a Google technology.

If that's not a happy path where things should just work, I don't know what is.

Personally, several reasons:

- AMP sites, much like most mobile sites, are frequently little more than less-useable versions of the full site

- AMP's forced Javascript transition and loading icon easily overwhelm any questionable loading speed benefits and break flow

- AMP URLs are unusable for copy-paste

- AMP adds further control to the Google web hegemony

- Most importantly, AMP is not optional. If Google was implementing AMP for the good of the user, rather than additional control and data on user activities, they would provide the ability to opt out of their invasive, hostile protocol.

If Google still enjoyed the trust they once did, AMP might be acceptable, though annoying. However, thanks to their continued campaign to monopolize and profiteer off internet users' data, any activities that might allow them to further do so must inherently be viewed in the worst possible light.

/rant

It's been a bad user experience for me - I've run into a fair number of AMP sites that load part of the content but not all of it (some websites, like Know Your Meme, put truncated content + a "read more" button in AMP; some host video or embedded documents or whatever and those don't make it to AMP), so my experience has been that I load the AMP page, scroll a bit, and then end up needing to load the real page.

Also I end up on AMP pages (generally the origin's AMP-reduced pages, not the Google cache thereof) way too often on desktop.

That said, yes, I still lean towards clicking on AMP sites and hoping that it's faster. But that's the irrational part of my brain, and the rational part would be happier with an additional 200-300 ms loading time in exchange for reliability.

Because AMP is just something that Google decided to came up with.

It is quite easy to make fast Web pages using standards without having Google messing up with the Web, pure HTML/CSS with zero JavaScript.

Google didn't need to do any of the things people are objecting to, in order to get the "great experience" you refer to.