People in this thread seem to be overreacting like my immune system on strawberries....
Apple isn't taking up the good fight against AMP. They're simply removing it from URLs when those are shared via the build-in "share" functionality.
99% of interactions with AMP pages will see no impact. It seems like it should be uncontroversial that it is preferable to use the canonical non-AMP URI when sharing, so as to invoke content-negotiation between that page and the devise of whoever clicks on the shared link.
I don't think anyone here thinks it's controversial to share the original URL instead of the AMP one. I don't think there's anyone here who is mad that Apple is doing this.
We are all mad that this is necessary in the first place. Apple is modifying their OS to fix something that Google shoved on people without any option to disable it or thought to the secondary effects of its existence.
Apple isn't taking up the good fight against AMP. They're simply removing it from URLs when those are shared via the build-in "share" functionality.
99% of interactions with AMP pages will see no impact. It seems like it should be uncontroversial that it is preferable to use the canonical non-AMP URI when sharing, so as to invoke content-negotiation between that page and the devise of whoever clicks on the shared link.