The premise that the web ought to compete with native app experience is flawed to begin with. Executing that goal through a corporate gateway is perverse.
The kind of web pages that people install as apps are made significantly worst by amp - like reddit is unuseable monstrosity with amp.
And when people answered with tangible good reasons to use app instead of web ... you move goalposts.
Google holds a large amount of sway over HTML's direction. This is derived from the fact that WHATWG is the standards body for HTML. (W3C is just a rubber stamp per the agreement between the two last year.) And this group is directed by four companies--Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla.
The power balance in this relationship heavily favors Google. It controls the purse of Mozilla. Microsoft's browser is based on Chromium. And Chrome already owns the majority of the market.
What Google wants from HTML, Google can get. Even if there is push back from others, they only need to release "beta" versions of their changes for the standard, wait for developers to take advantage of them, and then reintroduce the suggestions. At that point, Apple and the others will have little resource.
Google is simply too powerful and a threat to the open Web.
Perhaps instead of looking at which companies release browsers, they should just start putting the Chromium, WebKit, and Gecko teams there.
True, but that assumes without google, that's what we have. In fact, many of the content providers themselves don't want free exchange, every website trying to be it's own walled garden.
If google can force the hand of those trying to lock their content in their own formats, there maybe benefit to the clout of google.
I don't see this as Google trying to open up other sites, as much as it is trying to rebrand and gut other sites.
I feel bad for any other provider out there who thinks they 'have to' create AMP pages. They really shouldn't, if they don't it'll die like so many other Google fiascos.