It still lets one company set the standard for the web even if what they push does work on all browsers.

I’m not seeing the connection between Chromium and AMP.

AMP, for what it’s worth, is based on existing web standards. It’s a restrictive way of using those standards, but it sits on top of existing standard tech. And Google is using their position as a search engine to push that, not their position as a browser vendor (as evidenced by the fact that AMP has the same effect in Firefox/Safari as it does in Chrome).

The connection is this: Google has a large amount of influence in the Chromium code base. Using Chromium, a codebase Google Controls, gives them addition leverage in controlling how the web is viewed and built.

I don’t think anybody is disputing that Google’s influence over Chromium gives them leverage over the browser space. This is evident in things like their changes to how TLS certificate metadata is displayed, support for TLS 1.3, and changes to how content is rendered.

But this comment thread includes the claim that their influence over Chromium is being used to push AMP, and I don’t see how they are using their position with Chromium to push AMP, a technology that uses a specific subset of existing web technology and operates cross-browser already.

The technical steering committee for AMP has members from multiple companies, with only a minority employed by Google.

Technically correct, but not useful. Three of the seven members of the committee are employed by Google, and the other four members are each from different companies: https://github.com/ampproject/meta-tsc#members. Plus, it's not clear wether each member has the same amount of "power".

> it's not clear wether each member has the same amount of "power".

Each member gets one vote. Membership to the group is decided by the group, with a goal of no more than 1/3 coming from one company. The distinction I pointed out is both technically and practically correct.

https://github.com/ampproject/meta/blob/master/GOVERNANCE.md