Okay but why even are web editing applications even being pushed to the web? Why even is this hypothetical relevant for a discussion of AMP here? I understand more and more former desktop operations are being pushed to web clients but full-fledged video editors?

As I mentioned to another commenter: can you show me an example of a full-featured, web-based video editor using AMP?

I'm not sure if I can buy in that this is the example to rest upon here.

I assume you mean video editing.

Many reasons, but the top one in my opinion is having a single code base across all devices. I think it's a worthwhile goal, personally.

Sure, but this is just as achievable, if more agreeably challenging on the desktop as a platform as it is on the web.

I'm not sure if it's a particularly convincing axiom here for heavy payloads of web-apps, particularly when we're talking about simply delivering content to cite a singular code base for why a web application that would benefit from AMP (which was the central conceit of the actual blog post we're all here discussing today) needs to be 15MB heavy.

Well formed markup and smart content compression could accomplish the same thing.

Hmm, I don't think I ever mentioned AMP in my posts. I know the blog post talked about it, but I was focusing on the PWA bit, as it's something I'm fairly experienced with. When the guy mentioned 15MB, I was simply saying that it's not an outlandish size if you're delivering a PWA which provides 15MB worth of solid functionality.

I guess you got your wires crossed, as AMP is not something I was talking about - my focus was specifically on PWAs and the fact that it's not a problem if their payloads are large.

But yes, AMP (read: glorified CDN) wouldn't solve much if you have 15MB to download each time you visit a site (aside: you wouldn't need to do this with PWAs because of caching).