> People use Google because they choose to, not because they're forced to, or because they can't find alternatives.<p>The gall of saying this while simultaneously forcing millions of businesses to conform to their idea of what the Web should look like in order to get favorable PageRank ratings. AMP? ReCaptcha? Google Maps? Lighthouse?<p><i>SEO?</i><p>As if it's optional to avoid those as a business owner. It's like telling a diabetic they can just stop buying insulin if they can't afford it.
ROFL, amazing, they actually flat out lied about the Android situation.<p>In this post, they show a screenshot of stock Android with no Google search bar visible.<p>Except you can't remove the Google search bar in stock Android 11 unless you switch to a custom launcher:<p><a href="https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/73306757?hl=en" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/pixelphone/thread/73306757?hl=en</a><p>Edit: Correction, they show a screenshot specifically of a Samsung phone, which presumably is customized by Samsung. In effect, this is lying by omission, as they present that experience as though it's a universal Google product experience--they even precede those screenshots with the phrase "Look how easy it is to add a different search app or widget on Android."--when in fact it's specifically not supported in Google's own stock version of Android.
"People use Google because they choose to, not because they're forced to, or because they can't find alternatives."<p>This is highly disingenuous given the context. It's a bit like saying people breathe polluted city air because they choose to.<p>Yes, fine, theoretically you have the choice to move to the mountains or stop breathing altogether. Sorry for breathing.
If it is flawed, it is that there are so many more anti-competitive things that Google does, especially in the ad space, so it is too narrow.<p>That seems like legal strategy rather than granting a pass to Google's even-more-egregious anti-competitive actins, though.
> consumers<p>What about the companies that Google killed with underhanded tactics?<p>Actually, what about the <i>consumers</i> whose choice in smartphones was reduced because Google contractually forced phone manufacturers to include certain features, and prevented them from developing alternatives [1,2]?<p>But I'm sure Google would like to focus all our attention on short-term, individual-level effects, so they can continue to pretend a single company dominating ever more markets doesn't, and won't, have any bad consequences.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.theinformation.com/articles/google-s-confidential-android-contracts-show-rising-requirements" rel="nofollow">https://www.theinformation.com/articles/google-s-confidentia...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/google-will-stop-bundling-its-apps-on-android-phones-in-response-to-eu-fine.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/16/google-will-stop-bundling-it...</a>
Flawed, yes, but emotions are involved. One good that <i>could</i> come come about in a breakup is a better understanding of the value that Alphabet has. Markets could value their individual businesses more accurately with the reporting requirements of separate public companies. This could assist in valuing other mega tech companies.