> If after, then the content isn't "served from a single company's database" anymore; it's served using a decentralized and open standard for cross-origin server push.
Does this mean that Google will no longer rank higher those, who implement AMP and serve through Google Cache, than those who don't?
> Based on what we learned from AMP, we now feel ready to take the next step and work to support more instant-loading content not based on AMP technology in areas of Google Search designed for this, like the Top Stories carousel. This content will need to follow a set of future web standards and meet a set of objective performance and user experience criteria to be eligible.
Furthermore, once the Web Package Standard is finalized, the "Google Cache" won't exist anymore, at least not in the same way it does now.
The Web Package Standard allows any web page which supports origin signed responses to be served via cross-origin server push from any server that supports HTTP/2. So Google will probably still cache and push pages via their own infrastructure when you visit those pages from your Google search results, but the actual content being served will be fully controlled by the original publisher and behave exactly as if your browser received the page directly from the publisher's server.
> So Google will probably still cache and push pages via their own infrastructure when you visit those pages from your Google search results
And that's what I mean by saying, that the entire web will be served from a single company's database, which already controls the browser and the search. You will be able to browse the web without ever leaving Google servers, and Google will be able to track your every interaction on the web.
This doesn't increase Google's ability to track you at all. If you click a link on a Google search results page they already know you visited that site; them serving the initial page load via a cross-origin server push changes nothing.
It also doesn't give them any more control over the web, since the page contents are still strictly controlled by the original publisher (and that's cryptographically enforced).
Google now only knows the first page I visit from its search results. After this update, Google will be able to follow me across the entire web, because it will the one who serves it to me. How is that not a concern?
Are you seriously claiming that the largest ad company in the world is interested in decentralizing the web? Its blog article you linked to yourself says, that the goal of this entire initiative is to increase the usage of AMP by "displaying better AMP URLs".
> After this update, Google will be able to follow me across the entire web, because it will the one who serves it to me.
That's not how it works. Only the initial page is loaded over cross-origin server push. After you actually navigate to that page you're no longer on Google's site (which is why the URL bar is able to show the domain of the site you just navigated to instead of still showing google.com), so obviously they don't have any enhanced ability to monitor what you do after that point.
> Are you seriously claiming that the largest ad company in the world is interested in decentralizing the web?
The general web is already decentralized. This is about decentralizing AMP. And yes, decentralizing AMP is exactly what Google is doing here.
> the goal of this entire initiative is to increase the usage of AMP by "displaying better AMP URLs"
Yes, and they're accomplishing that by pursuing the development of open W3C standards which can be used by anyone. Just like how offline storage on the web started as a feature enabled by [a proprietary plugin developed by Google (Google Gears)][1] until Google pursued the development of open standards to replace it: https://www.w3.org/TR/service-workers-1/ (Check out who the editors are on that draft.)
Google's been following this pattern for over a decade now. They start with a proprietary initiative, then use the lessons learned from that effort to develop open web standards that improve the web for everyone. (I can give maybe a dozen more examples if you still don't believe me.) There's no reason to think AMP will be any different in this regard, especially since Google has already made their intentions on this matter clear.
Does this mean that Google will no longer rank higher those, who implement AMP and serve through Google Cache, than those who don't?