aren't you conflating market share with the existence of competition? anyone has the choice to switch to bing today, but many people have no choice of telecom provider (cellular internet doesn't work for all the people in areas with bad cellular reception to begin with).
> anyone has the choice to switch to bing today, but many people have no choice of telecom provider
Do they though? I mean, bing exists, sure, but it's inferior and more expensive (by lacking quality). Hey, you can switch to satellite telephony/internet or connect two tin cans with a string if you really want to get off of your mobile provider.
> cellular internet doesn't work for all the people in areas with bad cellular reception to begin with
But the majority of US citizens have a choice, right, the population centers do have multiple carriers?
For example if I wanted to purchase internet, I have a choice of two providers. If I don't choose either of those two, I cannot have internet.
For search providers, I have a choice among a much larger variety. Google may have larger market share, but you're not locked into using Google like you are with your ISP.
There's a difference between having multiple potentially inferior choices and only having two choices full stop. In my experience living across multiple states now you don't have a choice of ISP.
> For search providers, I have a choice among a much larger variety.
I'm from EU, Google has 95%++ market share here and there are not other serious options (besides Google's resellers, which are a bit slower, and not quite as good, but close). Bing exists, but the quality is abysmal, so it really isn't an option, just as satellite internet probably isn't for most US states (I assume - it is an option in Europe, albeit not a great one).
A counterpoint to that is that Bing's quality or accessability is not effected in any way by Google. Microsoft made a shitty search engine no one wants to use. Everyone CAN use it, so it is a viable option. Just like Le Bernardin is a viable option to McDonalds. (ignore the price difference, as it is immaterial to this discussion)
> ignore the price difference, as it is immaterial to this discussion
If you ignore the price, you have plenty of options for wired internet: hire a company to lay fiber straight to your home, connect it to a data center on the other end. Price and quality are the big factors in whether something is an alternative. Dial up or GPRS isn't an alternative to broadband, not because it's much more expensive, but because of the quality of service. Satellite internet can provide you with all the bandwidth you need, where ever you need it, but the price is prohibitive.
That is definitely not an option for the vast, vast majority of people in the US. Doesn't matter how much money you offer, good luck digging up Pacific Street to lay a fiber cable directly from a data center to your mansion on billionaire row.
Your neighbor on billionaire row where most Americans apparently live will gladly allow you to tunnel under his land, I'm sure. Since money isn't an issue, offer him a billion or two.
I do agree with you though: saying money isn't an issue when looking for alternatives is absurd. You can pretty much solve anything by throwing money at it. "You have an option if you consider it an option to pay 10x or 100x the price" misses the point entirely imho.
It's not just your neighbors, it's the city, and the activists who know their way around the labyrinth of regulations (not all of whom can be bought off without someone else just taking their place).
Would breaking google into 4 companies give us 4 googles or 4 bings? Considering that the more data you have, the better your results, it seems like winner take all is the norm in any sort of data-driven tech.
