[bhupy]

It depends on who the consumer is. Are we talking about end-users, or advertisers?

As far as end-users are concerned, there absolutely are alternatives: Bing and DuckDuckGo.

It doesn’t really matter that they have low market share, there isn’t really a structural switching cost. You just have to enter a different URL in the address bar. Google obviously has the “best” results, but that doesn’t make it a monopoly. That just makes it the best out of a few options, and the market share largely reflects that.

Ben Thompson addresses that point in his article, too:

> Indeed, what makes Google’s contention that “The competition is only a click away” so infuriating is the fact it is true.

Google is arguably an anti-competitive monopsony, not a monopoly. Ben Thompson argues that our laws today don’t handle monopsonies well enough, owing to the consumer welfare standard.

[avmich]

> It depends on who the consumer is. Are we talking about end-users, or advertisers?

We're talking about end users, because openly admitting that end users are objects in the trade between companies risk opening a bigger can of worms.

> As far as end-users are concerned, there absolutely are alternatives: Bing and DuckDuckGo.

First, it's like choosing between two communication providers, both of which know there is no other choice and silently split market between them. I think a good idea would be to look at 20+% of market with suspicion, and act accordingly. Give me at least 5 - and in practice, more - options to choose, made so that it's nearly impossible for them to cooperate - then we can talk about freedom of choice.

Second, having alternative doesn't create a non-monopoly. If AMD had a smaller market share, Intel would be in much hotter water as recently as a decade ago. Google maintains share by a variety of ways, including app store, mobile OS, agreements for pre-installation etc. - all different actions aimed at maintaining the lead. Microsoft worked this way in around 1990-s, even though technically not only they wrote software.

This is an opinion.

[snicker7]

> Give me at least 5 - and in practice, more - options to choose, made so that it's nearly impossible for them to cooperate - then we can talk about freedom of choice.

Wikipedia lists much more than five:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines#General

Search, from the end-user perspective, is just another SaaS product with little lock-in other than quality of results.

[bhupy]

> First, it's like choosing between two communication providers, both of which know there is no other choice and silently split market between them.

Except that's not what's happening with search engines. They compete with each other in the same territories. With communication providers, it can sometimes be impossible to switch unless you physically move. That's simply not the case with search engines.

> Give me at least 5 - and in practice, more - options to choose

While this would be nice, not having "at least 5 options" is not a prerequisite for monopoly, by any definition.

> If AMD had a smaller market share, Intel would be in much hotter water as recently as a decade ago.

Again, switching costs. That simply doesn't exist in search engines.

> Google maintains share by a variety of ways, including app store, mobile OS, agreements for pre-installation etc.

I think, at best, you can make the case that this kind of pre-installed bundling should be curtailed. But that's a pretty narrow ruling.

[n4r9]

I get where you're coming from, but does it challenge the point that Google, Facebook and a few other tech giants have so much power because of anti-competitive behaviour, not just "because users choose them"?