That's because you are running in a simulator and not doing ad-blocking. Here is the real deal, 1.9MB and took 12 seconds to load completely: https://imgur.com/a/XcsNEsp
If 3X improvement in loading time and data transfer is not much of a help, I don't know what it is.
USERS like AMP because it is an actual improvement of the UX. The industry complaining over AMP is like the music industry going after the MP3 in the early 2000s.
Running a content blocker makes the original page load quickly and doesn’t require any amp.
If you need an ad blocker to make amp load quickly that defeats the purpose of amp, because the ad blocker makes the original site load quickly without the inherent google bullshittery.
I have my ad-blocker on all the time. The 3X improvement is with ad-blocker on both. AMP loads multiple times faster, therefore it does have a purpose. On the original site, things jump around until it's usable, on AMP it's right there when you tap on.
The crazy loading times are actually not that important as long as the site is usable quickly.
1.9MB in 12 seconds says about my internet connection but 3X improvement says about AMP.
Fight AMP as hard as you like, start a Kickstarter for anti-AMP explaining to the public the evils of AMP but when my search results return an AMP site and non-AMP site I am clicking the AMP.
Web tech people can revolt all they want or they can actually find a way to display a few kb of text and image quickly. You can be the music industry trying to protect their CD business or you can own the Napster/iTunes/Spotify and make your money from there.
Web publishing becomes garbage, AMP is fast loading garbage. The fast-loading garbage wins.
464 requests and 12MB of garbage for an AMP hosted article.
https://imgur.com/tPHaHIO