Interesting... I was just about to start working on coding and implementing AMP in my websites. Now this gives me something to think about if Google plans to maybe go a different direction eventually. I can't see them keeping 2 sets of standards that do similar things.

AMP is not only about getting pages cached by Google. It's also a whole series of requirements and recommendations, about the size of the CSS, the use of external scripts, and all kind of methods to load elements asynchronously. Some of them can perfectly be included in HTML standard for example.

it begs the question, what's the point of having your own site.

If you are asking this questions it is because you do not understand how and why amp exists. The true benefits and ultimately implementation is complex and I think that this is its true problem.

AMP accelerates the first impression. When a users clicks on a link from search they will be served the page as fast as possible (from the AMP cache). Any interaction with that page after that point are then making calls to the website's server, and thus the user no longer benefits from the amp cache. But if the site uses a service worker, then it can pre-load a host of assets that then maintain the accelerated speed. But setting all this up is no simple feat. Currently the biggest hurdle to this integrated approach is the lack of support for service-workers on iOS devices. Basically, you implement all this stuff, but then only 50% of your users ever benefit from it.

What a load. AMP was/is a direct response to FB's Instant Articles and Apple News in a misdirection UX, mobile rendering marketing wrapper. The current rush to add features, i.e. stories, email browsing illustrates both the walled garden purpose and the need to add 'incentives' due to rather dismal uptake, the initial momentum having plateaued.

Sites can actually be faster and certainly much richer than the equivalent AMP version. It serves no real purpose technically and primarily Google's otherwise.

Google and other platforms, enterprises have always tried to change web standards to their view or needs. Sometimes to benefit, most often not. So, on that initiative I'm withholding comment until I see the actual specs.

As to AMP itself I still wouldn't touch it with a 10 kilometre pole. :)

Note: at this point I'd put AMP being discontinued by 2020 at 80:20. Feel free to do your own risk analysis, ROI, and prognostication.

I am surprised there hasn't been more of a response to this news.

My impression is that AMP has not taken off to any great degree, so I'm not that surprised there's not much response, tbh.

@HarryAdney based on what metrics? Most to all news publishers seem to have adopted it.

I think this has more to do with anti-competition rules from places like the EU.

@HarryAdney based on what metrics? Most to all news publishers seem to have adopted it.

@engine posted a link, showing that less than 0.1% of all websites are using AMP.

I think this has more to do with anti-competition rules from places like the EU.

I don't see how.

@TravisDGarrett

Not the AMP project itself. More to do with Google favouring it in the search results. See Google Shopping.

@engine posted a link, showing that less than 0.1% of all websites are using AMP.

Statistics can be very misleading. Look at the graphs in the link carefully. Spefically the third graph, where x axis = number of websites and y axis = volume of traffic to those websites. AMP fall in the top left of the graph. Few websites use AMP, but those that do tend to be high traffic sites. You can interpret this tow ways, one using AMP will increase your traffic, that would be awesome if it were true, but it is not. Or, many high traffic sites have implemented AMP. The latter seems like a more plausible explanation. I think this goes to my comments above, a proper AMP implementation is a complex undertaking that most webmasters (specifically the WP type that do not code or understand complex JS) do not have the knowledge, the skill or the desire to undertake something like AMP. But big sites, like big news sites, definitely see the benefit and have and are making the big investment to implement AMP.

Love it or hate it, I think that something like AMP, will continue to forge the divide between the small and the big players. This will make it ever harder for the smaller sites to compete. In the future as AMP and PWA's become more and more prevalent the lines between apps and websites will become more and more blurred, and running a plain vanilla website will be as out of place as having a website styled with tables is today.

The only thing holding this back right now is Apple's reluctance to adopt service-workers. Once (or if) that happens the flood gates will open and the web will change overnight.

On statistics, it's important to know that the stats I referenced come from the top 10 million websites, and the top 100 sites are likely to have a much higher percentage of AMP. Read that as you see.

As for AMP, I suspect Google's having a serious re-think, so, yes, i'm inclined to agree with the thinking that we'll be having yet another format to create, and AMP may end up falling by the wayside. Sigh!

So what is the advantage of AMP then from a SEO view point?

- In mobile listings you get the little icon (not that a regular user knows what that means)
- Appear in Google News Carousel in search results (Only Amp results are here right?)

A few questions I have:

- For getting into Google News, AMP is not required correct?
- There is currently no known ranking advantage?