Why doesn't Google treat all websites that load under 100ms at par with an AMP site? They keep using the ruse that AMP is important because it is all about fast loading sites and less frustrating user experience but they have page speed insights, and already rank sites based on load speed so why force this non standard on everyone? If they just said we'll give you a bolt icon and the perks for a site that loads under…
The key technique that AMP promises will beat the limits of network latency is precaching. Unfortunately, users have a strong privacy expectation that random websites will not be notified that you are interested in them until you actually click the link in search results (or news, or whatever). For precaching to work without violating user privacy, the data needs to be loaded from some server that already knows that the link was shown to you, so there is no privacy violation from giving it that information. AMP's solution is for the host company of the results page to fill that role.
The AMP lightning bolt is intended to mean "this page is already downloaded offline on your device, and so will load instantly", not just "this page is well-designed and fast". The difference is minor for blazing fast connections, but that isn't true for developing world users with weak connections and devices.
Google has said that when open web standards like Web Packaging finally show up which enable the same safe preloading behavior, those sites will be included in AMP carousels. We'll see whether they follow through with that. [1] [2]
* All experiments conducted with cache disabled, times are until Load event fires.
[1] https://blog.amp.dev/2018/03/08/standardizing-lessons-learne...
[2] https://github.com/ampproject/amphtml/blob/master/contributi...