Assuming good intent here seems ridiculous given the clear purpose of AMP and the many opportunities they had to implement it differently. Doing it correctly is not difficult. All you'd need is a subdomain (amp.x.com) with a cname or A record pointing to google's cache servers and you get all the speed benefits provided by AMP without letting them control the whole internet. It's obviously a walled garden play and pretending otherwise is cynical and dishonest.

I wish they'd just be up-front about it. Then it's just a straightforward decision: Are you willing to give Google control over your URLs in exchange for access to a speedy Google CDN with preferential search ranking? For some people, that is an extremely good trade-off (at least in the short term. It seems naive and dangerous to me in the long-term, but I'm not a CEO.)