What's wrong with it exactly... beside being weird. I'm not a fan of manipulating the URL the way they do with this change, but couldn't you just opt to not use AMP if you don't like it?

Ideally people would develop fast sites on their own, but apparently they need the help of Google.

If you don't use AMP your search engine placement suffers. Often dramatically, as all the pages in Google's top-most carousel are all AMP pages.

And AMP is a pain in the ass. It's sold as being "just HTML" but it isn't, really. You can't even use an <img> tag, it has to be <amp-img>. So you have to generate two versions of every page. Achievable for large companies but if you don't have a lot of resources that's a big overhead. As is so often the case, it helps concentrate all web traffic to a smaller and smaller number of sites/publishers and shutting the rest out. That's not good.

The issue is that you can't, or you risk your site being basically blacklisted from google. Especially if your a news site.

Users have no control outside of not using google. If google were to provide a setting for the user to never see AMP, I would have less issue with this. But they don't

Instead, they basically force publishers to use this because if they don't the news carousel will not show their article. It just gives Google more control over the web for minimal at best benefits

I don't known much about AMP so my question is why can't it be a standard?

If there are some benefits to it why shouldn't those benefits be standardized? Is Google preventing the standardization of AMP?

> but couldn't you just opt to not use AMP if you don't like it?

This is false. as a user I cannot easily opt out of using AMP

Nah I see AMP staying around long enough to capture a significant portion of web share that they mine data from. Essentially is just a way to insert themselves as "the internet"

Google products that suck the most tend to last a long time. See Google+.

Amen!