Hey Owen, thanks for your piece. I wanted to point out a few factual inaccuracies:
- Google isn’t quietly experimenting with AMP on desktop. AMP pages are just web pages. They get indexed like any other page, and they can, if they are canonical show up in desktop results. AMP’s own homepage amp.dev is a great example for this.
- The Signed Exchange tech isn’t coming soon. It is launched in Google Search with supported browsers. While the underlying tech (as often) isn’t exactly simple, it can be very easy to implement for publishers. E.g. CloudFlare makes it a push of a button.
- I’m happy for you that your Google Search traffic increased. But this is probably a coincidence and not related to AMP unless you ranked in the Top Stories carousel–which the vast majority of AMP pages don’t since it is for news only.
- You compare AMP’s governance model to Chromium, but that isn’t a good comparison. It was changed 10 month ago based mostly on Node.js’s governance model. And the technical decisions are made and format’s direction are set by the Technical Steering Committee in which Google does not have a majority vote.
- Your paragraph about subscriptions is linking to an unrelated Google product. AMP supports all subscriptions services on the web, and you definitely don’t have to contact Google to get that set up.
- You bring up the idea to “rank on speed alone”. That is, in fact, how it works. The latest iteration launched a year ago. This ranking is based entirely on user perceived speed and not related to any technology at all.
- The drop in traffic when you turned off AMP is likely not related to AMP, but rather to having turned off half of your website. This can confuse an indexing system such as Google’s. Google documents how to safely do this to minimize disruption to traffic.