| The problem is not SEO updates. The problem is that there is only Google and no one else. Google, under Eric Smidt,start prioritizing big/branded sites over mom-and-pop. Nothing wrong with it - their search, their choice. The problem is that because they have overwhelming market share, there is no other choice left for smaller sites, but to shut down. They have overwhelming search market share not just because of search algo, but because they own the hardware that powers it, they own the browser which delivers those result, they own the analytics which tells them more about you and they own the ads on every site you go to. A startup should have the right to compete with Google - even if they dont build their own browser, even if they dont build their own analytics, even without the huge hardware farms and even without the ad engine that powers google. Once we split Google up, these network effects go away. Smaller startups can compete with Google on a relatively better footing. There can be more than one search providers and hopefully some of them can favour smaller shops as opposed to bigger brands. |
You're advocating for limiting a companies ability to provide a product to the customers that the customers want, so that others are able to compete. Using regulation and laws to hamstring a companies ability to provide a successful and demanded product or suite of products doesn't improve things from a consumer standpoint, it actually limits both the product they have now, and the products that may be developed in the future in the space you opened up with regulation.
The combined ecosystem of google is optional (I use google services in multiple browsers, I block all adds including google, the hardware it runs on is irrelevant to me, I could use bing or other search providers if they offer better results, sometimes I do).
The fact is the google ecosystem is convenient, but its not a huge value add for the customer like you represent. I'm able to switch out any one google product for a competitor without a significant impact to my daily working life, but none of those other products that startups or others have provided are better than what google offers (browser, email, search). Even Amazon has taken android and stripped out the google suite, and that is a successful product showing that it can be done and has been done.
Startups have always had the incumbent/entrenched product to deal with. If its significantly revolutionary and disruptive, that overcomes the incumbents advantages of size, exposure and entrenchment. The issue is Google is not only innovating at the large scale, but actively seeks out and purchases startups with approaches that are better and implements those in house (sometimes, or just squashes the startup and moves the IP and people elsewhere for its own benefits).
Large companies like MSFT, Apple, GOOG, Salesforce etc.. have learned that at scale, you can't innovate as quickly due to unavoidable corporate overhead, but you can purchase innovation and implement it internally (some do it better, many worse). If the problem is google doesn't have any competitors/startups that are able to break into the market, its either due to a lack of innovation/disruption in that market segment, or if there is, google/others are purchasing that rather than compete against it.