Devil's advocate: Google is generous by caching AMP sites on their own servers. The only thing you can't do is to include your own invasive third party tracking (ok, you can use Google's of course), which is bad anyway. But you can still include your ad just as a <img> in the page, no JS and tracking. Like a dumb print ad. I don't really have a problem with that.
"Google is generous by storing your email on their own servers."
"Facebook is generous by storing your posts and friend lists on their own servers."
I agree
With the nonsensical sarcastic point? Or the real point?
There is no such thing as a generous corporation. It goes completely against maximizing shareholder value. Google gets something out of AMP, something they can quantify monetarily.
You do know that a corporation does not maximize shareholder value, nor is that their purpose.
A company can do something generous.
Sometimes something that helps the customer also helps the company.
Isn't AMP open source? How is it bad, and an abuse by Google?
I believe that it routes them into a proprietary cache by google. Taking page views from the provider or at least that is my understanding of it.
I can't speak for everyone, but my objection to the AMP cache is that it's just another way for Google to collect your browsing data.
AMP is all fine, but most of the newspapers are lured to implement it by Google with promise of higher page rank on its search results. It all ends up in a walled garden and when the publishers are reliant on it, Google will control the chain of supply. Disgusting behaviour. Just waiting for more people to lobby in EU so they get another fine.