I also really wish there was a useful way to turn AMP off - it very much interferes with my browsing habits.

I find messing with the user agent (mobile firefox plugin "phony" lets you pose as lynx, for example!) can be effective, and also I saw on a google products discussion page that using the url https://news.google.com/news/i#0 returns non-AMP results.

Why it can't just be a user option to disable it, I've no idea.

We added that button to Google Search on the web about a month ago.

You added an obscure icon that when tapped reveals the link, which then must be also be tapped. That's a little more obtuse and undiscoverable than 'added that button'.

The fact that people here on HN are still requesting it says it's far from well implemented - I wouldn't have known about it if I hadn't read it somewhere when you added it. The more conspiratorial among us probably assume that implementing it poorly is intentional.

It'll be replaced with a standard share button once navigator.share() API launches.

Given that you are the tech lead on AMP at Google, maybe you can clarify a bit on this...but why the decision to group this interaction under Sharing? It seems like people are trying to just visit the original site, not share it, and one of the big criticisms has been that this is buried. Presumably putting it under Sharing is also a bit confusing because to many, "sharing" implies sending content to someone which describes a very different interaction than opening the original page.

Is it because "Sharing" in this case us meant to imply pushing the content to another medium (such as an external browser) vs. just the implied meaning of "sharing with another person?"

I'd love any context you can share from internal discussions around how prominent to make that functionality. I think it is hard to deny that Google benefits from it being harder to find, which is where the criticism from the parent is likely coming from.

Only a tiny percentage of users wants to use the "click through to original" feature. Sharing is a major use case that strongly benefits publisher. In the end one has to make trade offs what to make prominent in a UI.

As a user who frequently wants to change the rendering, I don't think I would have ever thought to look under share. I associate the 'share' section with tracking code and buttons for social networks.

And yet, it's what a search engine is supposed to do: link you to someone else's site.

Nope.

I literally loaded Chrome for Android after reading your comment, searched for a Reddit thread, and no button, nor any other way to bypass AMP without having clicked the AMP link already.

Screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/Xnrlzcs.png

They refer to the moment you open a AMP result.

Before, there was no way to get the original URL. Now they display a "link" icon on the top so you can get the original URL.

From the results themselves, no, there is no way to bypass AMP (like there is with App-indexing)

Yes, solution is sub-optimal, as djrogers says :)

Also: using browser's native sharing option, shares the Google URL's, not the "real" one

On our radar to get browsers to change and they have been receptive to our proposal.

Cool! That's good news :)