In summary, it claims that Google falsely told publishers that adopting AMP would enhance load times, even though the company’s employees knew that it only improved the “median of performance” and actually loaded slower than some speed optimization techniques publishers had been using.

[…] Avant de vous lancer tête baissée dans une version AMP de votre site, pesez bien le pour et le contre, et assurez vous de savoir si cette démarche va réellement répondre à vos besoins pour réduire vos temps de chargement ; ou plutôt faire cautère sur jambe de bois en accélérant seulement certaines pages, et sur mobile uniquement.

Since the beginning, Google has insisted AMP is the best solution for the web’s performance problem. And Google’s used its market dominance to force publishers to adopt the framework, going so far as to suggest that AMP’s the only format you need to publish pages on the web. But we’ve reached a point where AMP may “solve” the web’s performance issues by supercharging the web’s accessibility problem, excluding even more people from accessing the content they deserve.

"And, for goodness sake, disable AMP on your website.
Don’t feed the monster – fight it."

"In sum, the prospect of AMP may not be positive for all publishers. Though the technology offers rightly lauded fast page loads, and potential opportunities in new products, with only 34% of publishers seeing a clear boost in traffic and some facing substantial monetization challenges, implementing AMP may come at a high cost for publishers. Those publishers facing revenue challenges might be better served by optimizing their implementation setup on AMP rather than relying on a traffic boost to solve these monetization challenges."

Alexandre Thuriot, Architecte SEO chez M6 Web, explique comment il a intégré en interne les recommandations Dareboost pour généraliser les bonnes pratiques concernant la performance web.

Look, AMP, you’re either a tool for the open web, or you’re a tool for Google search. I don’t mind if you’re the latter, but please stop pretending you’re something else.

"Whenever performance testing AMP, keep in mind that a test from origin will include potentially suboptimal server settings like bad cache headers or missing image optimizations. Also the biggest speed gain (near instant load through prerendering) will not be reflected in commonly used performance tools and metrics."

"Publishers should not be compelled by Google’s search dominance to put their content under a Google umbrella. The Web is not Google, and should not be just Google."

TL;DR: We are making changes to how AMP works in platforms such as Google Search that will enable linked pages to appear under publishers’ URLs instead of the google.com/amp URL space while maintaining the performance and privacy benefits of AMP Cache serving.

"Le parcours utilisateur e-commerce est donc faisable et réalisable en AMP. Votre page produit ou catégorie s’affichera dans les premiers résultats dans le moteur de recherche Google, la performance d’affichage et la navigation entre les pages seront améliorées pour une meilleure satisfaction de vos clients et sans doute plus d’achats sur mobile !"

Google to Go After Sites That Use AMPs as Teaser Pages

"Google has all the ability in the world to reward and punish sites based on their performance without fracturing the web in the process."

"That’s a particularly low blow, because it’s such a bait’n’switch. One of the reasons why AMP first appeared to be different to Facebook Instant Articles or Apple News was the promise that you could host your AMP pages yourself. That’s the very reason I first got interested in AMP. But if you actually want the benefits of AMP—appearing in the not-search-results carousel, pre-rendered performance, etc.—then your pages must be hosted by Google."

"When we’re evaluating technology, or discussing a particular strategy, we can’t give a project a pass because anyone can open a pull request. Instead, it’s worth asking ourselves Franklin’s questions: when a site adopts AMP, who benefits? And who, or what, assumes the risks in using AMP?"

"Je veux être bien clair : je pense qu’AMP est un framework qui a été conçu avec de bonnes intentions, pensé pour résoudre le vrai problème d’un Web devenu bien trop lent pour ses utilisateurs. Mais utiliser AMP ? Le prix pour le Web, et pour ceux qui y gagnent leur vie, est vraiment, vraiment trop important."

"I want to be very clear: I believe AMP is a framework designed with good intentions, aimed at solving the very real problem of a web that’s gotten far, far too slow for its users. But using AMP? The cost for the web, and for those who do business on it, is much, much too high."

AMP est séduisant dans le sens où il permet de repartir de zéro et d'obtenir de la performance. Mais on perd la gouvernance de son domaine, l'outillage n'est pas encore au point et ce n'est pas un standard W3C. Beaucoup de risques face au gain potentiel, donc.