But there's no real lock-in effect. It's very easy to switch search engines, but rarely anyone does it because Google's simply better than Bing. If someone else comes up with better algorithms I'm sure that people would start switching. But very few people switch just to avoid the monopolist.
Same for Google Chrome. Switching to another browser is a matter of a few minutes (including taking the data with you). But as long as Chrome is at least as good as the others, there's no reason to do so.
I think it's important to recognize the differences between monopolists with lock-in (e.g. Microsoft with Windows and Office) and those without lock-in. Even though I'm also concerned about the amount of data that Google has, I'm sure they'll at some point end up like Yahoo or AOL. The question only is how long it takes.
IMO Microsoft is only around because they could generate revenues from lock-in effects during years where their new products were really bad. They've caught up now and did a lot right in the last years (and already benefit from it financially). But if they'd only had a portfolio like Google, I'm not sure they would still play a role.
> If someone else comes up with better algorithms I'm sure that people would start switching.
DDG has yielded results far superior to google years (IMHO, this is a bit subjective), but I don't see people moving over because google is simply "what they know".
A better alternative won't make people move, they need further motivation.
Same for Google Chrome. Switching to another browser is a matter of a few minutes (including taking the data with you). But as long as Chrome is at least as good as the others, there's no reason to do so.
I think it's important to recognize the differences between monopolists with lock-in (e.g. Microsoft with Windows and Office) and those without lock-in. Even though I'm also concerned about the amount of data that Google has, I'm sure they'll at some point end up like Yahoo or AOL. The question only is how long it takes.
IMO Microsoft is only around because they could generate revenues from lock-in effects during years where their new products were really bad. They've caught up now and did a lot right in the last years (and already benefit from it financially). But if they'd only had a portfolio like Google, I'm not sure they would still play a role.