Given Google's reach, not the wisest decision for any browser maker.
Google being the main revenue source for Firefox is often cited and is true, but if you look at Brave, its competition, what they do is to block a publisher's ads, replacing them with their own, being essentially racketeering and I'm surprised how they weren't declared illegal already.
Fact of the matter is, if people don't pay money for browser licenses, and they don't, and if ads don't fund those browsers, and they currently do, then alternatives to Chrome cannot exist, if not funded by another mega corporation that can burn money just so Google can't be the only player, like what Apple does.
---
But back to decision making — we are talking about AMP pages being served by searching on Google.com, because that's the major source of these links.
Given the search engine is Google's property and not some public utility, they can destroy any browser maker if they wanted to.
Speaking of which, if you're so bothered with Google.com serving AMP pages, well, why not choose an alternative instead?