Hmmm.. I think the reason it isn't ready is because apparently nobody knows anything about it!

Maybe the preliminary question is whether anyone here has seriously looked at rolling it out.

? As far as I can see, UnBounce doesn't currently support AMP.

A great many services do not work in AMP. You have to request that they be supported, e.g. some at [github.com...]

If that doesn't hint at the fundamental problem with AMP, I don't know what does!

nobody knows anything about it

Google have hardly been quiet about it - they've even sent emails via Webmaster Tools to tell people to use it, and there are currently more than 15,000 news articles in Google News [google.co.uk].

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of AMP to kill most scripts and extraneous for a "mobile" fast experience? OR A REALITY OF: "Give up what you want to do and do as we tell you". I suspect the latter.

AMP is not ready, because Chuck Norris is not ready for AMP!

Oh, new CN fact :)

Google is well known for developing its products on-the-fly, and i'm sure we'll see AMP changing over time, imho.

What would it take for me to use AMP? Nothing, because my pages load within one second at all times already. AMP is for non-webmasters who require apps or generic CMS to publish content. Not needing to modify images or have multiple versions of posts would be good for starters.

Honestly I feel that Google's rep for not trusting webmaster signals is working against them here(see authorship).

AMP is:
* a way to keep AdWords alive unchanged in an increasingly blocker world.

* a way to corral content within their own walled garden and so set up a three way content fight with FB Instant pages and Apple news.

* a way to gut information enhancement, user experience, and competitive advantage by making non-transactional sites as boring and stark as Goggle Answer/Knowledge Box.

I have no interest in improving AMP. The sooner it follows Buzz, Dodgeball, Wave et al the better. A pox on it.

With every year since 2007 I have seen less and less reason to appreciate Google and more and more reason to develop alternatives.

I have seen less and less reason to appreciate Google and more and more reason to develop alternatives.

I like your way of thinking. Been doing that for a few years myself. :)

To be honest I do not believe AMP in its inception was created with A/B testing in mind. It was created for one simple reason - Google to become the biggest "content publisher" there is, trumping any efforts by Facebook and Apple to gain traction in this space. TO ensure that they made AMP carousel on top of the mobile search results.

So, yeah, not surprised. I mean think about it - do you advertise with the Facebook alternative? Do you A/B test? - NO. Ergo there is no reason to assume Google thought about it either.

I am reminded of that tune from Damn Yankees: "Whatever Google Wants..."

Nah, can't be that simple. :)

Honestly I don't understand AMP. To me the biggest argument against it is that we've seen time and time again that mobile-only solutions are not the answer. There was WAP/WML, there was .mobi and m.domain.com, and so on. After a few years people come the conclusion that they're not needed. So at best AMP is a temporary solution.

Everything they recommend can be done in regular HTML. It just takes discipline. If Google had put the same resources into their PageSpeed tool that they put into AMP, and taken an even harder line on page speed as a ranking symbol, they could have sped up the entire web, not just mobile pages.

Or a cynical view of AMP is that it's a gimick that lets Google prioritize big brands since big brands are the only ones who will invest the time and money to jump through the hoops for a short-term solution.

@jay5r - While I party agree with you, I want to argue that Google AMP is not for large brands. On the contrary, AMP is for medium sized business AND MAINLY for content publishers of all shapes and sizes. Google wants all WSJ and NYT and Bloomberg to be hosted on their cahsed servers and displayed through their search engine. That simple. They want to push the users away from apps and mobile-only websites and get the mobile users back to searching.

I will be bold enough to say that sooner rather than later phone assistants like Siri and Cortana will start using that AMP to "read" or otherwise display AMP as their go-to content.

What would it take for me to use AMP? Nothing, because my pages load within one second at all times already.

That leaves room for improvement - anything over a tenth of a second is a perceptible delay.

AMP is for non-webmasters who require apps or generic CMS to publish content

It is primarily a way of persuading big media sites to have lightweight pages. They love loading pages with crap and a hundred different Javascipts, and it needs a buzzword to persuade management to do anything else.

Everything they recommend can be done in regular HTML. It just takes discipline.

It was pretty clear that a lot of big news sites and similar are not interested in exercising that discipline - all they want to do is cram in a hundred ads, widgets, trackers, analytics scripts and social sharing buttons on every page.

a way to corral content within their own walled garden and so set up a three way content fight with FB Instant pages and Apple news.

AMP is NOT a walled garden. Anyone can publish AMP content and host it where ever they like

I tested the web page [ampproject.org ] on PageSpeed Insights 25 march 2016.
Result: 70/100 mobile; 83/100 PC. [developers.google.com ]
I tried to apply their technology to video Youtube [ampproject.org ] - this does not work.
I tried to apply their technology to Google analytics - Html validator shows their code as an error.

When using AMP, the URLs are appended with /amp at the end.
For example, xyz.com/post becomes xyz.com/post/amp

In this case wouldn't it count as duplicate content? Also, how will we create a sitemap with amp?

Please help with this query.

This thread is over a month old ... wondering if anyone has seen any real movement on AMP? Is it more ready now than before?

Actually more and more websites adopt AMP. Almost all the major publishers and now more and more often I am seeing enterprise websites entertain the idea of AMP-ing their blog/resource pages.

In short, yes, AMP is gaining more and more traction, as in-house SEOs smell blood in the SERPS where AMP will be an easy short-cut to first page of Google via AMP carousel.

This carousel is the biggest incentive since the knowledge graph provided by Google for a new feature they are trying to push.

I still have not seen this AMP only carousel. I tried a number of US news searches with Chrome's mobile emulator at various settings. What sort of search should I try to see it?

The biggest problem with AMP is not getting attention: it have built in widgets for certain sites, thus favouring those sites over less known ones. It gives a small number of large sites a huge advantage over everyone else.

1) Use/mimic mobile phone
2) Type any US primary related broad search using a US proxy (AMP is working in 12 countries currently IIRC)
3) Enjoy AMP carousel between 2nd and 3d position
4) ...
5) Profit

If this carousel becomes prominent on both mobile and desktop, the result will be the biggest shortcut to first Page in the SERP since the early local search "packs". What is more, I believe that if AMP finds difficulties with wide scale adoption, Google will brute-force the carousel as a "common" feature in the SERPs, similar to the knowledge graph and quick answers as an incentive to webmasters to switch.