The selling point of AMP is that it's a mobile-friendly web component framework. If someone uses AMP for their website, and as a result you get a better mobile experience, it's hard to see how that's not inherent to AMP.
I turn on the faucet and fill a glass of water. Taking a drink from the glass, I feel less thirsty. If someone turns on a faucet, and as a result feels less thirsty, then that that thirst-removal must be inherent to turning on a faucet, right?
This is obviously silly, but follows the same reasoning that you have stated. Drinking water reduces thirst, not running water from a faucet. Redesigning a website to be less bloated results in a better mobile experience, not designing around AMP. It is possible to redesign a website without using AMP.
I think it's fair to say that thirst-removal is inherent to turning on a faucet. It's true that there are other ways to reduce your thirst, and it's true that turning on the faucet has other effects (such as increasing your water bill) that have nothing to do with how thirsty you are. It's even true that the water company behind your faucet might be doing bad things that it ought to stop.
But it doesn't seem helpful to analyze faucets as being a monopolistic plot by Big Water rather than a technology for letting you drink when you're thirsty.
Thank you for this perfect analogy: access to running water isn't relevant to quenching thirst in the same way that amp isn't relevant to having a usable mobile website.
in theory, yes, you're correct. but the reality is that turning on the tap is usually an important step to having a drink of water.
