| There's two parts to this that you're unfairly combining There's what you don't like, and there's what you don't trust (in the computing security sense of the word). If you don't trust them to not do stuff that actually harms your computer, you shouldn't trust their content. The sites that serve most of the malware on the internet don't have stuff Google is going to quote in a search result... - Now there's the stuff you don't like, their big ads, and their slow page and what not, but that's their content. They need to pay for it somehow. People will pay $5 for coffee from some random coffee shop they've never visited, but they won't pay 99 cents for an app someone put a few years of development into with 5 star reviews. - If you like their info, but not how they want to deliver it, why not abandon it until they change their tune? Why act like Google is doing some great service robbing them of their traffic just because you don't like how they serve info? Especially when enough people apparently are ok with it that Google felt they were the best place on the internet to steal this info from? |
This is a trope, but is it true? Maybe these spendy people buying all these $5 coffees are also buying apps and renting movies and looking at ads, while the cheapskates making drip at home are pirating and ad-blocking.
Apple isn't making tens of $billions off people refusing to buy apps.