| > 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. |