More high traffic sites are rocking AMP than sites that use XHTML or HTML.

One could also say that more (low traffic) sites don't use AMP and that would be correct.

[w3techs.com...]

FACT.

So what is your point?

Google throws a lot at the web to see what might stick. Most/all look to solve some problem that Google has at that time. Over time the problem may dissipate or a more permanent solution may be baked in. At that point the service is ended.

A very Google approach; the Google Graveyard currently has over 170 resident memories of services past.

The reason that AMP remains prevalent with some large sites is (1) inertia/ignorance (2) the power of enterprise to get ad deals unavailable to smaller businesses that overcome the inherent detrimental effect on ad revenue (a major reason smaller sites have left the program).

The reason that Google is putting far less hype and push behind AMP is that the reason for it’s creation is increasingly irrelevant going forward. Corralling sites to corral content is not as important now that they can snippet out content directly as required.

Google is well on the way to its ultimate transformation from premier search engine to premier answer machine.

Where once Google wanted speedy sites now they, at best, could care less, or, more likely, are quite happy to see page weight and render time increase. Because their raison d'être has switched from links to sites with answers to snippets aka content from said sites as direct answers. From middleman to answer man. From traffic referrer to traffic destination.

Hello,

High traffic sites are often the ones which are also the less optimized, so AMP is certainly improving their performances. Also, these sites are often so complex, that, once they bothered adapting their code to AMP, they won't go on moving backward.