AMP for email is a terrible idea
I&#x27;ll get down voted for saying this, but the HN crowd&#x27;s hypocrisy is baffling.<p>1. Gmail is a channel that Google has under monetized for a decade. This is an opportunity for them to extract value from the said channel. If you&#x27;re allergic to Google offering free services that use your data for advertising, go pay for email. Google isn&#x27;t a charity and you aren&#x27;t entitled to a Gmail of your choosing.<p>2. Apple is a prime example of successfully monetizing a &quot;channel&quot;. They sell you hardware that apparently you own, but cannot run apps that haven&#x27;t received Apple&#x27;s blessing. Even their fucking charging port is proprietary (lighting) and to build an accessory compliant with iPhones, one has to pay an Apple tax of $7&#x2F;unit that can easily be avoided with open standards such as uUSB. Never in the history of computing has your hardware required the manufacturer&#x27;s blessing to run apps. Why do I mention this? Because an overwhelming majority of those foaming at the mouth at AMP are doing so on their iPhones and iPads - I hope the irony isn&#x27;t lost on you folks.<p>3. If you find Apple&#x27;s practices more abhorrent than AMP and consistently oppose both - congratulations, you&#x27;re a minority whose reasoning isn&#x27;t clouded by brand jingoism<p>4. If you called bullshit on Google because a) mobile pages can be fast(er) even without AMP and b) JavaScript was restricted within email for security, then your opposition to this proposal is the most accurate.<p>Cheers