Funnily enough the AMP version of my page is larger and takes longer to load than the non-amp version. And ironically I don't even get that little "amp" bolt symbol because it's a software product page and not a recipe, news post or blog post (there's only a handful of categories that are amp enabled).

I think I'm going to remove the AMP page, too. It offers nothing to me and is actually worse for my visitors than the normal responsive page.

Same here. My blog is (unsurprisingly) text-based, so the 40-50kb JS file was almost all of the page weight.

Hold on, "accelerated" pages mean "add 45KB of data"?

You need to add [this js file](https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js) that is near to 45KB. I have just uploaded an AMP version for my site and it felt a little bit ridiculous... I made a simpler version (with no js and limited css), changed `<img>` for `<amp-img>` and added this js. It would load even faster without this js!!

Advertisers (as a whole) have a veto on what advertising-driven websites can do since they write the checks. So I think the idea is that it's a compromise that users, websites that depend on ad revenue, and advertisers will all accept, since they all get something they want. If any of them are too unhappy then the new standard won't succeed.